[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IKEv2 Payload Types
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
mcr> IKEv2 Payload Types Specification Required.
mcr>
mcr> New payloads will be significant features, so need to be described.
mcr> IKEv1's lack of a critical bit meant it was effectively Standards
mcr> Action, so this is a relaxation.
>>>>> "Jari" == Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@kolumbus.fi> writes:
Jari> Hmm.... I think Specification Required is quite weak. Does this mean
Jari> that with the critical bit set to 1, a vendor (with documentation)
Jari> can prevent interoperability with a base RFC compliant IKEv2
Jari> implementation?
yes, however... one can use private use types like this ALREADY.
Frankly, I do not find "Specification Required" to be that weak at all.
Getting an informational RFC published is not as easy as all that.
] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr@xelerance.com http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys
iQCVAwUBQBp/VIqHRg3pndX9AQHS4QQAs78C+HQgKvJXVj5z48svI0gjHGgc8D3T
PrsbUVnsROdU9FtByaGkeVS6Qsdcxj8udsQXlmoE5+H/1MypAbjs9h3ueS+yFslk
oDCTQjFtfDBZgFF5YGwcWxJPUuUD9ZPgcQ0J4U9whec37z8b9VqoDWPxdMbuzT22
RMN58HafJ7M=
=C7GR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----