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

RE: [Ipsec] VID for nat traversal



Joern, I guess you'd have to verify interop with other products for each
vendor ID you send to know whether you should send it.

The last draft with a specific VID is -03.

"the vendor id payload for this specification of NAT-Traversal (MD5 hash of
"draft-
ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-03" - ["7d9419a6 5310ca6f 2c179d92 15529d56"])"

draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-04.txt starts with MD5 hash of RFC XXXX.

You can look at all of the draft versions on one of the public archives,
such as:
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/index-wgi.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipsec-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-admin@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Joern Sierwald
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 2:54 PM
> To: Chris Stillson; ipsec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ipsec] VID for nat traversal
> 
> 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
> 
> 


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