For progress to Internet Standard, we need to verify the status of
implementations
relative to the RFCs. Rather than Going through an exhaustive list of
MUST and
SHOULD compliance, let's start with a simpler list, suggested by Sean.
I request that each implementer complete the following form:
*- Which of following databases does your implementation support:
- SPD (Security Policy Database)
- SAD (Security Association Database)
- PAD (Peer Authorization Database)
- Which of the processing semantics does your implementation support:
- IP Traffic:
- ICMP:
- Fragment:
- Path MTU/DF
The following questions document whether interoperability has been achieved as
well as other intangibles the IESG will be interested:
- What evidence do you have that your implementation can interoperate with
other implementations?**
**
** - In your opinion, are there unused features in the RFC that greatly
increase implementation complexity?**
**
** - Errata was filed against RFC 4301 and has been incorporated
in**https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kent-ipsecme-saforip-rfc4301bis/**;
are any of the incorporated errata problematic for your implementation?**
**
**- Does your implementation support the updates documented in RFC 6401?
Additional information (optional):*
Thanks,
Steve
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
