> On 31 Oct 2020, at 15:12, tom petch <daedu...@btconnect.com> wrote: > > On 30/10/2020 22:42, Tero Kivinen wrote: >> Roman Danyliw writes: >>>>>> It seems to me that the IANA entries for IKEv2 are incomplete. >>>>>> RFC8247 does a fine job of specifying algorithms and adding >>>>>> information such as status (MUST/SHOULD+), IoT, AEAD and so on, >>>>>> information which is not present on IANA. The policy for, e.g. >>>>>> Transform Type 1, is expert review and entries have been added via >>>>>> draft-smyslov-esp-gont but the IANA entries lack this information >>>>>> and, looking at the I-D, I see no such information (nor is there any >>>>>> reason for it to be there). Yet draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn... needs >>>>>> this information as references in the YANG module show. >> >> I am lost what information is missing from the IANA registry. > > > Tero > > Thanks for getting back to me. What is missing from the IANA registry is the > guidance as to the status of the algorithm, how highly it is recommended or > not. This I-D tells people to go to RFC8247 and the IANA Registry for > advice; RFC8247 gives that advice; the IANA web page does not.
It’s possible to add a column in the IANA registry, but it is not possible to capture the information from 8247 in such a table. RFC 8247 has “MAY” and “SHOULD+” labels, but it also has comments and a bunch of explanation, such as that some algorithm is a SHOULD for IoT, but not otherwise. I think it’s better to point people at the RFC where the information is, rather than post very partial information in an IANA table. Yoav _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
