2195 looks like a clarification to me. And not an essential one either,
because the attribute structure further down the section make it very
clear that there's one type per attribute.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 05/18/2010 12:39 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 5:07 PM -0400 5/17/10, Sean Turner wrote:
internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Security Maintenance and Extensions Working
Group of the IETF.
Title : Internet Key Exchange Protocol: IKEv2
Author(s) : C. Kaufman, P. Hoffman, Y. Nir, P. Eronen
Filename : draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2bis-11.txt
Pages : 130
Date : 2010-5-17
This document describes version 2 of the Internet Key Exchange (IKE)
protocol. IKE is a component of IPsec used for performing mutual
authentication and establishing and maintaining security associations
(SAs). This document replaces and updates RFC 4306, and includes all
of the clarifications from RFC 4718.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2bis-11.txt
Note that during this update we considered the following errata:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1671
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1672
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2190
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2191
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2192
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2193
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2194
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2195
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2196
1671, 1672, and 2196 were already reworded in ikev2bis.
2190 is not needed as it's covered in the next paragraph.
No one has reported problems with 2191, 2192, 2193, or 2194.
2195 seems reasonable, but there's been no discussion.
At this point, we believe there's no action required on these. Please let me
know very soon whether you see a problem with this course of action.
In specific, it would be good if the pickier folks on this list to look at 2195
and see if this is really just a clarification or is a change that limits
something we don't want to limit. Comments on any of the others is welcome too.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
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
