I'm fine with the change, and with the reference being either normative or informative. I prefer informative, though.
-----Original Message----- From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yaron Sheffer Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 11:55 PM To: IPsecme WG Subject: [IPsec] IESG DISCUSS re: IKEv2-bis and RFC 4307 Hi everyone, There is a DISCUSS position from an IESG member on the ikev2bis document that says: >The Gen-ART Review by Elwyn Davies on 4 May 2010 raised a question >that deserves consideration. Elwyn said: >> >> s3.3.4: The draft states that the list of mandatory to implement >> suites has been removed due to evolution going too fast. However >> there are effectively some mandatory to implement suites; they are >> listed in other documents. There should be a way of finding them >> so that users and implmenters can find them easily. >> >Inclusion of a informative reference seems reasonable. There could be >warning that the algorithm document is likely to be updated without >a corresponding update to the protocol. The RFC index will tell the >community when the algorithm document is revised. The previous WG chose not to put any reference to RFC 4307 into RFC 4306, so this would be a change. Having said that, adding a reference is not much of a change. Proposed wording for 3.3.4 would be: CURRENT: The specification of suites that MUST and SHOULD be supported for interoperability has been removed from this document because they are likely to change more rapidly than this document evolves. PROPOSED: The specification of suites that MUST and SHOULD be supported for interoperability is not included this document because they are likely to change more rapidly than this document evolves. At the time of publication of this document, [RFC 4307] specifies these suites, but note that it might be updated in the future, and other RFCs might specify different sets of suites. RFC 4307 would be listed as a normative reference. Please note that we are going one better than Elwyn's comment, in adding 4307 as a normative, rather than informational, reference. Is there any objection in the WG to this change? Thanks, Yaron _______________________________________________ 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
