On Fri, February 10, 2012 12:13 pm, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> sorry, I don't understand your statement. Yes, IKEv1 is popular but
> (formally) obsolete. It is still our responsibility to ensure that it
> doesn't gain new and insecure extensions in its old age. The way we do
> it is thro
On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> sorry, I don't understand your statement. Yes, IKEv1 is popular but
> (formally) obsolete. It is still our responsibility to ensure that it doesn't
> gain new and insecure extensions in its old age.
I think you understand my statement but sim
Hi Paul,
sorry, I don't understand your statement. Yes, IKEv1 is popular but
(formally) obsolete. It is still our responsibility to ensure that it
doesn't gain new and insecure extensions in its old age. The way we do
it is through the normal IETF/RFC-Ed/IANA bureaucratic processes.
Unlike T
[Removed iana etc from the CC list, as there is no point of keeping
them spammed by our WG discussion, I will contact back to them when we
have some kind of resolution about this.]
Paul Hoffman writes:
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
>
> > Hi Pearl, Tero,
> >
> > Regarding the
Pearl Liang via RT writes:
> - For Registry Name: IPSEC Authentication Methods (Value 3)
> > Registry Name: IPSEC Authentication Methods (Value 3)
> > Current: Standards-track RFC
> >
> > There is nothing about this in the RFC2409, so I would say either "RFC
> > required" or "Specification require
