Paul Hoffman wrote:
First off, thank you for bringing the topic to the WG. As the Designated
Expert, you are certainly allowed to make decisions without asking, so it is
extra nice that you ask on decisions that might be controversial.
On this particular topic, I would note that RFC 4753 is Informational RFC, not
a standards-track document. Thus, I would think that desires of the authors of
the RFC should have a heavier influence than the rest of us, although our input
might be important inputs to them (and maybe to the Designated Expert). Maybe
we should put the issue aside until we hear from them, which could be after the
holiday.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
We would recommend keeping the same numbers (19, 20, 21) since it
appears that all existing implementations have made the correction.
Also, we would prefer to keep RFC4753 and RFC5114 distinct since we'd
like to keep a separate document as a Suite B reference. If the
inclusion of the three ECP groups in two different standards is causing
confusion, it might be worth thinking about removing them from the
upcoming RFC5114 update.
-- Jerome A. Solinas, RFC4753 coauthor
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
