Re: [Ipsec] VID for nat traversal

[Joern Sierwald <joern@f-secure.com>]

At 09:41 27.04.2004 -0700, Chris Stillson wrote:
> >Joern Sierwald wrote:
>
> >8a:8f:e1:12:55:30:4d:3b:0a:ee:ba:b8:24:da:90:f6
> >for "draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-05"
>
> >I don't know any other solution. And this one will certainly stay in
> >even when the RFC is released.
>
> >Joern
>
>That sounds very reasonable to me. Except that that current draft if
>revison 8, giving
>8f8d83826d246b6fc7a8a6a428c11de8, although I come up with
>80d0bb3def54565ee84645d4c85ce3ee for revision 5....
>
>Maybe the easiest thing to do now is to just get everyone to tell the
>list what they are using so we can all just recognize each others vid's
>and work together. Although, hopefully, this point will soon be moot.
>
>
>chris stillson
>IPSEC crypto monkey
>x82477
>
>Note: Preceding comments written by an engineer. There is nothing
>to read into them. He really has no hidden motives or agendas.
>
>1.Right Understanding 2.Right Thoughts 3.Right Speech 4.Right Action
>5.Right Livelihood 6.Right Effort 7.Right Mindfulness 8.Right Concentration
>--Please inform author if he has forgotten about any of these
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ipsec mailing list
>Ipsec@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec


Interestingly, we're not using the hash of "draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-05" but
the hash of "draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-05.txt". I checked the cvs to find the
reason.

I blame myself.

oh dear. I guess I have to fix something. Now if only I'd know what other 
value I should add.

This thread is quite an eye-opener for me, so could we settle on something? 
As far as I see it
the thing might never go RFC and stay in an endless draft-update-loop. So.
What was the last draft version that actually changed something? 05?

Jörn


_______________________________________________
Ipsec mailing list
Ipsec@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec