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

[Tero Kivinen <kivinen@ssh.fi>]

andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com ("Andrew Krywaniuk") writes:
> 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?)

Yes, we do belive that this is the final version, as I wanted to
remove those XXX change later texts from the document, I replaced them
with proper numbers. Anyways I do not want anybody to implement
anything based on those numbers before we get this out as RFC I left
out the one piece i.e the vendor-ID.

We do need the vendor ID after we have the RFC too, as otherwise we
cannot detect if the other end supports the NAT-T at all (and sending
new payload numbers etc before getting information if the other end
supports them would be very good for interoperability).
-- 
kivinen@ssh.fi
SSH Communications Security                  http://www.ssh.fi/
SSH IPSEC Toolkit                            http://www.ssh.fi/ipsec/