Re: SOI QUESTION: 6.2 Port number

[Jean-Jacques Puig <jean-jacques.puig@int-evry.fr>]

>Please discuss and answer the following question:
>
> 6. Wire protocol issues
>
> 6.1 Message encoding
>
> 6.1.A) Should SOI worry about aligning parts of messages on 2 and 4
> byte boundaries?

	It would be nice.

> 6.1.B)  Should SOI tag its protocol with version numbers?

	Yes.

> 6.1.C) Should SOI format be roughly the same as IKEv1?  (See
> discussion in section 6.4, re: code preserving)
> 
> 6.2 Port number
> 
> 6.2.A) Should SOI use the same port as IKEv1?  (See discussion in
> soi-features-01 the tradeoffs in this question).

	If keeping IKEv1 format may be done without drawbacks for 
SOI construction, then the same port should be used. But this
'versionning' issue is not a priority (for me). The process about
it can be:
	a) Completing SOI format / exchanges design without any 
consideration of IKEv1 format.
	b) Afterward, is SOI format compatible with IKEv1's ?
	->true: keep the same port.
	->false: b.1) Can SOI format be slightly modified to match
IKEv1's format ?
		->true: modify and keep udp 500.
		->false: initiate iana process for a new port.

In a nutshell, formats matching is not, IMHO, a goal, but may be a 
nice side-effect of design.

--
Jean-Jacques Puig