RE: SOI QUESTION: 6.5 Extensibility of the protocols

["Stephane Beaulieu" <stephane@cisco.com>]

> 
> 6.5 Extensibility of the protocols
> 
> 6.5.A) Should SOI have mechanisms for allowing extensions to the SOI
> protocol?

Yes

> 
> 6.5.B) Should SOI need a way to mark new extensions as critical?
> (i.e. If you don't understand a critical extension you must fail the
> entire negotiation)

Yes

> 
> Implications from the Scenarios:
> 
> VPN, End-to-End, : <<<Extensions to the IPsec (now known as phase 2)
> parameters are needed in order to negotiate QoS characteristics for
> the various tunnels.>>> [[[6.5]]]
> 
> IPS: <<<However, the discussion in [ietf-ips-security-xx.txt] calls out
> requirements for an API, in order to provide a means of pushing
> authentication information to the application (e.g. "this peer was
> authenticated with this cert"), so the application can decide what types
> of transactions are allowed by this peer.>>> [[[6.5]]]
> 
> PPVPN/MPLS: <<<it may make sense to expand the set of phase 2
> identifiers to also support an MPLS/VPN identifier (so the entity
> doing the SPD check can be separated from the entity doing the
> encapsulation).>>> [[[6.5]]]
> 
> Implications from the Scenarios:
> 
> [none]