[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