Re: IKEv2 allocation policies

[Paul Hoffman / VPNC <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>]

At 4:36 PM -0500 1/29/04, Michael Richardson wrote:
>This is a summary of allocation policies. Please disagree, and change
>the subject. Maybe we need to make an issue for each one.
>
>    IKEv2 Exchange types			    Standards Action.
>    IKEv2 Payload Types			    Specification Required.
>    IKEv2 Transform Types		    Specification Required.
>    IKEv2 Transform Attribute Types	    Specification Required.
>    IKEv2 Encryption Transform IDs	    expert review.
>    IKEv2 Pseudo-random Transform IDs	    expert review.
>    IKEv2 Integrity Algorithm Transform IDs  expert review.
>    IKEv2 Diffie-Hellman, ECP/EC2N           Specification Required.
>    IKEv2 Extended Sequence Numbers Transform IDs    IETF Consenus.
>    IKEv2 Identification Payload ID Types    Specification Required.
>    IKEv2 Certificate Encodings		    Specification Required.
>    IKEv2 Authentication Method		    Specification Required.
>    IKEv2 Notification Payload Types	    First Come-First Served.
>    IKEv2 Notification IPCOMP Transform IDs  expert review.
>    IKEv2 Security Protocol Identifiers	    Standards Action.
>    IKEv2 Traffic Selector Types		    Specification Required.
>    IKEv2 Configuration Payload CFG Types    Specification Required.
>    IKEv2 Configuration Payload Attribute Types    Specification Required.

As I said in my earlier message:

>Having all of the values have the same requirements would make 
>allocation more predictable to people in the future. Doing so also 
>gives more uniform results in cases where an IKEv2 extension 
>requires a couple of values from different registries. Your proposal 
>is OK, but a more consistent proposal is simply that all values 
>require "Expert Review".

Are we trying to micro-manage the future with having different 
categories for policies?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium