Paul Wouters writes: > > for 8, 12, 16 octet versions came to be 18, 19, and 20, and the number > > 17 which was most likely allocated for the 4 octet ICV was marked as > > reserved. > > Except it is marked unassigned, not reserved. So one could use this > number in the future. I for sure have never seen it in the wild on > the wire or in source code. And if it is too weak, I guess we don't > mind breaking implementations who mistakenly still support it :)
It is marked as unassigned, as it was never officially assigned to that purpose. It can be safely reused, as nobody could not have implementation supporting that number, as there never was a draft listing that number for that use. I.e., the allocation was done inside the iana, and removed inside the iana, so nobody outside iana and authors of the draft will not even know about that. And as I am not part of iana, and not an author of that draft, that reasoning was my guessing what happened, I am not sure wheter that is what really happened, but evidence points to that way... -- kivi...@iki.fi _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
