> > 2) My comment on IKE is not the same as Bernard Aboba's. My request > > is that the references to IKEv1 [RFC 2409] be replaced with references > > to IKEv2 [RFC 4306], or at least that IKEv2 be referenced anywhere > > IKEv1 is. If this isn't done now, the Security ADs are likely to > > ask for it during IESG evaluation. With regard to Bernard's comment, > > I understand that PANA needs to run EAP in a situation where it may > > not be possible to use IPsec, and hence I agree with your response > > to Bernard - namely that EAP encapsulated in IKEv2 is not sufficient > > to meet PANA's requirements. > > I understand. I agree on replacing all IKEv1 references with IKEv2 > references.
Does that mean the specs will only support IKEv2, and IKEv1 is not supported? Do we really want to have such a limitation? Alper _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
