I believe that the first sentence of section 3 says it all. ship it!
I still have some minor comments, though these may have already been
discussed. There are no normative MUST to upgrade ( and in general very
little normative language).
Shouldn't we have for example:
Systems running IKEv1 should
[no hats]
I don’t want to start (or resume) a religious holy war about uppercase MUSTs,
but they’re usually about protocol compliance. What people should (not SHOULD)
do with their systems is not subject to requirements language, because the IETF
does not engineer administrators. What? You are n
I thought the purpose of the draft was to be able to say "look at this
document it says you MUST switch to IKEv2 if you want to remain IPsec
interoperable. I am suprised I do not see the MUST in question. I am fine
whatever chair/co-authors are fine with.
Yours,
Daniel
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 2:0
On Jun 29, 2021, at 14:17, Daniel Migault wrote:
>
>
> I thought the purpose of the draft was to be able to say "look at this
> document it says you MUST switch to IKEv2 if you want to remain IPsec
> interoperable. I am suprised I do not see the MUST in question. I am fine
> whatever chair/c
Hi Daniel,
That seems to be part of the problem. The IETF isn't in the business
of dictating
administrative behavior through normative language. Protocols comply.
People can use
compliant protocols or not, and if they decide to use protocols which
are non-compliant,
or if they use proprie
