+1 Anybody who starts implementing IKEv2 in a few months using the new RFC should not have to care about the history, and which notify type was added at which point, except to know that some implementations in the field may not support these newer notifications.
-----Original Message----- From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Valery Smyslov Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:35 AM To: Yaron Sheffer; Paul Hoffman; Tero Kivinen; ipsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [IPsec] Notify types, was: RE: Review of rest of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2 (section 2.23.1 forward) Hi, I also agree with Tero and Yaron. It's better to have all defined notifications listed in one table. In this case the paragraph immediately preceeding the table must be changed from: The values in the following table are only current as of the publication date of RFC 4306. Other values may have been added since then or will be added after the publication of this document. Readers should refer to [IKEV2IANA] for the latest values. to something like: The values in the following table are only current as of the publication date of this document. Other values may have been added since then. Readers should refer to [IKEV2IANA] for the latest values. By the way, section 6 (IANA Considerations) contains typo: [IKEV2] defined many field types and values. IANA has already registered those types and values in [IKEV2IANA], so the are not ^^^^ listed here again. Regards, Valery Smyslov. > I agree with Tero, regardless of the discussion we had on where to put the tables etc., the document needs to be internally consistent. So we should add the new notify types that we're defining in *this* document to the notify types table. Luckily there aren't many. > > Thanks, > Yaron > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Section "3.10.1. Notify Message Types" should include: > > > TEMPORARY_FAILURE {TBA1} > See section 2.25. > > CHILD_SA_NOT_FOUND {TBA2} > See section 2.25. > > [[ Response: Can't do that: the WG decided we have to leave the tables with the values defined in RFC 4306. Those two are, of course, listed in the IANA considerations. ]] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ 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
