Valery Smyslov writes: > > Ideally, i would even like to see a small section in G-IKEv2 that > > outlines how GDOI extensions can be mapped to G-IKEv2 . If this > > waas all registry entries in RFC8052, then it would IMHO even be a > > great exercise for progressing G-IKEv2 to see if equivalent > > registry entries for G-IKEv2 would be sufficient. And the section > > i am thinking of would for example just be a comparison of > > registry tables. > > I don't think core specification should define how all existing extensions > of an older protocol could be mapped to the current one, but few general > words could be added.
G-IKEv2 will have its own IANA registries just like IKEv2 has separate registries compared to the IKEv1. This will mean that none of the old extensions can be used directly for G-IKEv2 as new IANA allocations will be needed, but making new RFC that will define how old G-DOI extension for G-IKEv2 should be quite simple, mostly just doing IANA allocations and using IKEv2 terms and payloads instead of old ones. I do not see any major issues for making an RFC that adds old G-DOI extension to G-IKEv2. -- [email protected] _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
