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

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-04.txt



The authors believe this is the final version of the draft, that only
textual & format changes will be required by further IESG & RFC Editor
processing.  

Could we have assigned a vendor ID that represents these that didn't
depend on the RFC number ?  Yes, but then we won't know yet if this is
really final until the document is approved as an RFC which is when
these assignments from the IANA reserved range become effective.  So the
hash of the RFC number seemed appropriate.

If you want to test interop with the private use range numbers, then
these have not changed, so you can use the prior hash values of draft-02
and draft-03 strings to do that.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Krywaniuk [mailto:andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:53 PM
To: 'ipsec'
Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-04.txt


I'm sure that a whole bunch of us are wondering: what's with the
unspecified vendor id?

Does this mean that the current draft is going to be the last one and
all further numbers will be assigned by IANA? (In that case, why would
we need a vendor id at all?)

Andrew
--------------------------------------
The odd thing about fairness is when
we strive so hard to be equitable
that we forget to be correct.