[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IKEv2 allocation policies

At 4:36 PM -0500 1/29/04, Michael Richardson wrote: 
This is a summary of allocation policies. Please disagree, and change
the subject. Maybe we need to make an issue for each one.

   IKEv2 Exchange types			    Standards Action.
   IKEv2 Payload Types			    Specification Required.
   IKEv2 Transform Types		    Specification Required.
   IKEv2 Transform Attribute Types	    Specification Required.
   IKEv2 Encryption Transform IDs	    expert review.
   IKEv2 Pseudo-random Transform IDs	    expert review.
   IKEv2 Integrity Algorithm Transform IDs  expert review.
   IKEv2 Diffie-Hellman, ECP/EC2N           Specification Required.
   IKEv2 Extended Sequence Numbers Transform IDs    IETF Consenus.
   IKEv2 Identification Payload ID Types    Specification Required.
   IKEv2 Certificate Encodings		    Specification Required.
   IKEv2 Authentication Method		    Specification Required.
   IKEv2 Notification Payload Types	    First Come-First Served.
   IKEv2 Notification IPCOMP Transform IDs  expert review.
   IKEv2 Security Protocol Identifiers	    Standards Action.
   IKEv2 Traffic Selector Types		    Specification Required.
   IKEv2 Configuration Payload CFG Types    Specification Required.
   IKEv2 Configuration Payload Attribute Types    Specification Required.

As I said in my earlier message:

Having all of the values have the same requirements would make allocation more predictable to people in the future. Doing so also gives more uniform results in cases where an IKEv2 extension requires a couple of values from different registries. Your proposal is OK, but a more consistent proposal is simply that all values require "Expert Review".

Are we trying to micro-manage the future with having different categories for policies?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium