Re: IKEv2 Correction (editorial)

[Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>]

>>>>> "Radia" == Radia Perlman <- Boston Center for Networking <Radia.Perlman@sun.com>> writes:

 >>> 2. If you say "MUST send as zero" that creates a strong
 >>> temptation in receivers to check for zero and reject the packet
 >>> if a non-zero is found.  If that is done, the whole version thing
 >>> breaks.
	
 Radia> That's why I assumed the spec should say both "MUST send as
 Radia> zero" and "MUST ignore upon receipt", It would be nice in
 Radia> general if it were understood that that is the required
 Radia> behavior in fields marked as "RESERVED".  (That way specs
 Radia> wouldn't have to say "MUST send as zero" and "MUST ignore on
 Radia> receipt" for every reserved field, it would just be assumed by
 Radia> calling the field "reserved").

 Radia> I assume we're not arguing over the desired behavior...just
 Radia> the wording.

Right.

I did some searching in the RFC database and it appears to be less
consistent than I remembered.

Ok, so long as it's explicitly stated that the receiver is NOT allowed
to check the reserved fields, I'm satisfied.

   paul