At 7:24 PM +0200 11/26/09, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
>Given the amount of interest on the list, I prefer the "do nothing" approach.
That makes no sense. People seem interested in fixing the problem of the lists
being confusing.
There is nothing confusing about removing the assigned numbers: it only c
Folks,
I'd like to confirm that my previously raised concerns regarding
draft-ietf-ipsecme-aes-ctr-ikev2-02 have been resolved in the -03
version. Thanks to the authors for discussion and their cooperation.
This draft now seems ready to proceed.
Kind regards,
Alfred.
--
+--
Given the amount of interest on the list, I prefer the "do nothing" approach.
Just add this text somewhere (maybe multiple times):
This table is (these tables are) only current as of the publication
date of RFC 4306. Other values may have been added since, or will be added
after the pub
At 1:25 PM +0200 11/26/09, Tero Kivinen wrote:
>Paul Hoffman writes:
> > - Remove the numbers from every table
>
>I would rather keep the numbers for those tables which are really
>needed for implementing the protocol.
And here we disagree completely.
>I hate when I am implementing something and
Paul Hoffman writes:
> Based on Tero and Yaron's responses, I have a different idea:
>
> - Leave all the tables in
I think the encryption, hash algorithm etc tables could be removed
completely, i.e. the Transform type n tables in section 3.3.2. Those
tables change quite often, and they are not re
Paul Hoffman writes:
> MUST either offer no integrity algorithm or a single integrity
> algorithm of "none", with no integrity algorithm being the preferred
> method
That is fine for me.
It would also be fine for me to change "preferred" with "RECOMMENDED"
(RFC2119 synonym for SHOULD), but I can
