Re: IKEV2: Issue #4 Revised Identity

[Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>]

Paul Hoffman / VPNC <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> writes:
> At 9:11 PM -0500 2/11/03, Greg Carter wrote:
> >  the
> >difference between referencing it and the Revised ID draft is that the
> >profile draft clarifies how existing implementations should already be
> >working, not defining new behaviour.
> 
> ...and thereby screwing all the vendors who implemented IKEv1 in good
> faith, following what little it said and making guesses about the
> rest. The IETF has rules about not doing that.

I disagree.

In fact, it's SOP to publish new drafts that clarify behavior
that was underspecified in previous drafts. Naturally, this
occasionally screws people who took the interpretation not
chosen and that's a strong incentive to choose carefully.
But at the end of the day there has to be one interpretation
and that means that someone has to change.

From RFC 2026:
   A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
   known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received
   significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
   interest to be considered valuable.  However, further experience
   might result in a change or even retraction of the specification
   before it advances.

...

   Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature
   specifications.  It is desirable to implement them in order to gain
   experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification.
   However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if
   problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying
   implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive
   environment is not recommended.

-Ekr



-- 
[Eric Rescorla                                   ekr@rtfm.com]
                http://www.rtfm.com/