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

RE: [Ipsec] VID for nat traversal



>Paul Hoffman wrote:
>The industry should either (a) wait for an RFC number or (b) use 
>something now that reflects the official version that will turn into 
>an RFC. I propose the latter.
>
>The MD5 of "draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-08.txt" is 
>074d5b89c6ea3b8337b34c630cfd05f1.
>
>People who implemented earlier versions of the draft will use 
>different vendor-IDs, which is appropriate. However, for the "final" 
>vendor-ID, this seems good enough.
>
>Does anyone have any objection to using 
>0x074d5b89c6ea3b8337b34c630cfd05f1 for the vendor-ID of what will 
>become the RFC for this document?

Generally, no. except you should drop the txt, I think
i.e. md5("draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-08"). That, and the fact
that the final RFC will likely change the payload #'s for the
NATD and NATOA from 15,16 to 20,21 to work with rfc3547. Or maybe
they are orthoganal. Not sure yet.

Personally, I have not problem with what we pick, as long as we agree.
Although the point is moot if the Windows implementation does nothing.
In that case, we will all do the same as them

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