Re: IKEv2 Payload Types

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Richardson wrote:

>     Jari> Hmm.... I think Specification Required is quite weak. Does this mean
>     Jari> that with the critical bit set to 1, a vendor (with documentation)
>     Jari> can prevent interoperability with a base RFC compliant IKEv2
>     Jari> implementation? 
>
>   yes, however... one can use private use types like this ALREADY.

Is it necessary to keep this behaviour in IKEv2?

>   Frankly, I do not find "Specification Required" to be that weak at all. 
> Getting an informational RFC published is not as easy as all that.

I agree that Informational RFC publication is not easy. But RFC 2434
does not require an RFC, other documentation is also allowed:

      Specification Required - Values and their meaning must be
           documented in an RFC or other permanent and readily available
           reference, in sufficient detail so that interoperability
           between independent implementations is possible.

--Jari