Re: question on "code preserving" section in Paul's draft

[Dan Harkins <dharkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

  It is not our intention to say "MUST implement" IKEv1. If you have
already implemented IKEv1 then there will be things, like the payload
parsing code, that can be reused when writing IKEv2. If you have not
implemented IKEv1 then "code preservingness" is a non-issue. We're
not forcing people to write IKEv1 so they can reuse code when implemen-
ting IKEv2. Definitely not.

  I didn't get that impression from the draft but if you did then
most likely more people did too. What's the particular text that gave
you that impression so it can be re-whacked?

  Dan.

On Wed, 15 May 2002 11:33:31 PDT you wrote
> 
> Paul's SOI draft seems to imply that an IKEv2
> implementation must also implement IKEv1 as well.
> 
> Is that the intention of the IKEv2 authors? If
> so, there's more to this issue, not the least of
> which is an even *heavier* burden placed on small
> memory footprint widgets.
> 
> 		 Mike