[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

No Subject



  Absolutely. That's what section 11 is all about. The ones that are
defined are given to IANA and the ones in the range that is "reserved
to IANA" are just that. The only ones that are not maintained by IANA
are the ones in a range that is for "private use among mutually consenting 
parties". (And let me note again that writing a draft to say "if you want 
to do 40bit DES use number 65001" is not the proper use of the private use 
range since that attempts to define a number out of a range that in 
intentionally undefined).

  I'm happy to say it's RFC 2409 now. 

  Dan.

On Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:10:42 EST you wrote
> Are the Attribute Assigned Numbers in Appendix A of
> draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp-oakley-08.txt intended to be fully managed by
> the IANA just like the ones in draft-ietf-ipsec-ipsec-doi-10.txt?
> 
> The reason is that we want to be sure which "magic numbers" should be
> in the IPSEC-DOI-TC MIB, which would be maintained by the IANA.



References: