I agree with Jerome's opinion. Let's leave 19, 20, and 21 the way they are. If there is confusion between the 2 RFCs than let's fix it in a -bis favoring the former of the two.
Dan. On Fri, January 22, 2010 10:48 am, Jerome A. Solinas wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
