Hi Paul,
I have marked below with an asterisk those that I think should stay in the
document, because they are important to understanding/implementing the protocol.
Overall, I'm not sure this exercise is worth our time. In particular if we
strip tables of their values, there's a high risk of introducing
inconsistencies between the document and the IANA registry.
Thanks,
Yaron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 19:31
> To: IPsecme WG
> Subject: Re: [IPsec] #123: Proposal to remove the IANA tables from
> IKEv2bis
>
> Yes, I should have worked this out more fully before posting.
>
> In all cases, I would add a reference to the IANA registry.
>
> Only lists code points: remove the whole table
> 2.22: IPComp Tranform IDs
> 3.1: Exchange types [*]
> 3.3.1: Protocol ID [*]
> 3.3.2: Encryption, PRF, integrity, DH group, ESN
> 3.3.5: Transform attributes [* ??]
> 3.15: CFG type [*]
>
> Lists semantics, remove the code points but leave the semantics:
> 3.5: Identification types
> 3.10.1: Notify messages
> 3.13.1: Traffic selectors
>
> Other:
> 3.2: Next payload type -- remove value
> 3.3.2: Transform type -- remove type number
> 3.3.3: Transform types by protocol -- leave in whole table
> 3.6: Certificate encoding -- remove type number, leave in UNSPECIFIED
> 3.15.1: Attribute types -- remove type number
>
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>
> Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
