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

Re: exchange type 6?

To: sommerfeld@East.Sun.COM
Subject: Re: exchange type 6?
From: "Derrell D. Piper" <ddp@cips.nokia.COM>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:14:18 -0800
cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-Reply-To: Message from Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@East.Sun.COM> of "Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:31:56 EST." <200102222031.f1MKVu221253@thunk.east.sun.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

 > When interoperabilty fails the fickle finger of blame initially points
 > to the innocent party *at least* half the time.  And the customer gets
 > annoyed regardless of who's to blame.
 > 
 > I really hope that if I were to propose and/or implement a new IKE
 > exchange method, it wouldn't get assigned exchange type 6 by IANA.
 > 
 > Mark exchange type 6 as reserved/deprecated/..., and let's move on.  No
 > need to officially document what it was, but at least mark the pit so
 > nobody stumbles into it by accident.

Hear, hear.  I wish this would have happened for RIPEMD-160 HMAC as well.  (I
often wonder if that draft was just forgotten during the RFC process...)

Regardless, I also think this is the right thing to do.  We have enough number
space to burn one for this and we could always reallocate it in an emergency.
What I don't agree with is continuing to do nothing.  In the absence of the
allocation, folks using that number should be planning to migrate off of it.

So how do we make this happen?  Ted/Marcus?

Derrell

Prev by Date: Re: exchange type 6?
Next by Date: Re: On the Use of SCTP with IPsec
Prev by thread: Re: exchange type 6?
Next by thread: Any firm plans for another Bakeoff?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread