At 12:03 PM +0200 12/1/09, Tero Kivinen wrote:
>Dan Harkins writes:
>> Groups 1 and 2 were defined in RFC 2409 and repeating them in a
>> subsequent RFC does not change that.
>
>RFC2409 has been obsoleted, so I do not want to refer to that, as
>people will then go to the RFC2409 and notice that i
Dan Harkins writes:
> Groups 1 and 2 were defined in RFC 2409 and repeating them in a
> subsequent RFC does not change that.
RFC2409 has been obsoleted, so I do not want to refer to that, as
people will then go to the RFC2409 and notice that it has been
obsoleted by RFC4306, and will go to there
Hi Tero,
Groups 1 and 2 were defined in RFC 2409 and repeating them in a
subsequent RFC does not change that. I suggest leaving the reference
to RFC 2409 for groups 1 and 2 (and 3 and 4 for that matter) that
currently exists today at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipsec-registry,
as of 2315
At 2:43 PM +0200 11/30/09, Tero Kivinen wrote:
>Unless anybody objects, I will be requesting IANA to make the change
>next week.
Not only do I not object, I thank you for doing something I volunteered to do.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
___
Now talking only about the Tranform Type 4 - Diffie-Hellman Group
Transform IDs IANA registry.
Valery Smyslov writes:
> Currently exact groups for numbers 1, 2, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 16 are not
> defined in IANA.
> For me this is inconsistent. Either change two abovementioned lines to:
>
> 1
