Hi Tero,
This is also question what should we do for the rfc5996bis.
We have two options, we removed the text saying section 2.9.2 was
added in the RFC5996, or we add the section 2.9.2 from the ticket #12,
and add note that saying that this time we really added it...
What does the working group feel we should do? Note, that if we add
the 2.9.2 that might cause delays, as I am not sure if we can do that
kind of change after IESG has already approved the rfc5996bis (it is
now in the AUTH48), meaning it might need IESG to recheck that part.
On the other hand I think adding the text which we already have
approved in 2009 to the specification would be the right thing to do,
as there clearly is need for clarification (as we can see from the
Dammvik's question).
I think we should add this text. The text is useful and I don't see
a reason to sacrifice it in favour to speed up RFC publication.
Regards,
Valery.
kivi...@iki.fi
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
