Re: IKE Minor version

[Joern Sierwald <joern.sierwald@datafellows.com>]

At 16:14 28.6.1999 -0700, you wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Oops.  Just noticed that the versioning in RFC 2408 is strangely
>backwards.  And to think I thought it was a bug in my code that I
>rejected larger minor versions!  Since 1.0 is the "current" version,
>and 1.1 is the "old" version, how do we change the version number to
>indicate minor updates such as those in the new IKE draft while
>retaining compatibility??
>

The old version is 0.1.

Still, it is correct to reject a 1.1 version number. If we
start sending "version 1.1" all old implementations will reject 
the connection. If they send INVALID-MINOR-VERSION, we can retry
with 1.0. This is ugly.

Common Vendor ID payloads? 
How about sending "RFC4000" if you support a new RFC 
or "draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp-xauth-03" if you support a new draft.

Jörn

---

References:

• IKE Minor version
• From: Will Price <wprice@cyphers.net>
• Re: IKE Minor version
• From: Will Price <wprice@cyphers.net>

---

• Prev by Date: RE: Getting the features chart going
• Next by Date: RE: Getting the features chart going
• Prev by thread: Re: IKE Minor version
• Next by thread: IKE Minor version
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread