[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IKEv2 Payload Types



Michael Richardson wrote:

>     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.

Is it necessary to keep this behaviour in IKEv2?

>   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.

I agree that Informational RFC publication is not easy. But RFC 2434
does not require an RFC, other documentation is also allowed:

       Specification Required - Values and their meaning must be
            documented in an RFC or other permanent and readily available
            reference, in sufficient detail so that interoperability
            between independent implementations is possible.

--Jari