[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-----