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

RE: exchange type 6?

To: <andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com>
Subject: RE: exchange type 6?
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:08:32 -0500
Cc: <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <004301c09d8a$8c5c49c0$1e72788a@andrewk3.ca.alcatel.com>
References: <004301c09d8a$8c5c49c0$1e72788a@andrewk3.ca.alcatel.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

Andrew,

I agree that at this point the best thing to do is:

	- avoid reuse of the number by publishing an RFC that 
specifies how it is currently used
	- make that RFC informational or historical
	- clarify going forward what is expected expected re control 
over registration of ALL numbers associated with IPsec (wityh a 
suitable justification of what does and does not require WG/IANA 
approval vs. mere registration to avoid conflict)


Steve

References:

RE: exchange type 6?

From: "Andrew Krywaniuk" <andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com>

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: Re: exchange type 6?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread