At 4:44 PM -0400 4/10/09, [email protected] wrote: >That looks like an oversight at least wrt RFC 4869.
Actually, this started with an oversight in RFC 4543. Section 5 clearly says that it is for IKEv1 and IKEv2, but section 9 only seems to cover IKEv2. >Chairs (of ipsecme) and Pasi (AD) - is a new RFC needed to >allocate this value, or is there a lower overhead and faster >means of getting this done? This can probably be done by Pasi, given the nature of the error. Otherwise, we probably need a revision to RFC 4543. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
