RE: Move TS to optional (RE: Don't remove TS from IKEv2)

[Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net>]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Rajesh Mohan wrote:
> > Any optional feature is one more decision that can be made differently by
> > different implementors, breaking interoperability.  Not a good idea.
> 
> I do not agree that no-TS feature will break interoperability. It really
> depends on how we define interoperability. When two gateways negotiate to
> not use TS...

The normal definition of an optional feature is one that need not be
implemented at all.  Life being what it is, that means some people will
not implement it, and others will insist on it being present, thus
breaking interoperability. 

> We do not need no-TS feature if IKEv2 can solve all cases. Can we configure
> IKEv2 such that between the same pair of host we have "ESP null for H.323"
> and "ESP for FTP"? If the draft cannot cover this case, then no-TS feature
> will be useful where it is needed.

That's not "no TS", that's a case where the TS needs some way (a name?) to
refer to traffic restrictions prearranged by other means.

                                                          Henry Spencer
                                                       henry@spsystems.net