Re: question about draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-07

[Joshua Graessley <jgraessley@apple.com>]

On Oct 30, 2003, at 12:55 AM, Tero Kivinen wrote:

> latten@austin.ibm.com writes:
>> In draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-07.txt, section 3.1, there is mention
>> of vendor ID payload to be passed in Phase 1, but it is not defined
>> in the draft nor in rfc 2409.
>
> The actual vendor ID value will be added when the final RFC number
> of the document will be known, i.e it will be the MD5 hash of the text
> "RFC XXXX", where the XXXX is the actual RFC number of the
> draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-07.txt document.

In other words, until this is published as an RFC there can be no 
interoperable implementations. This wouldn't be a problem if it didn't 
take so long for something to go from a draft to an RFC. As it is, a 
number of vendors have implemented something (they had to ship 
eventually) based on these drafts and used different vendor id codes. 
The result is implementations that would probably interoperate just 
fine if only they used the same vendor id codes.

-josh

smime.p7s