Tero Kivinen wrote:
Jerome A. Solinas writes:
We would recommend keeping the same numbers (19, 20, 21) since it
appears that all existing implementations have made the correction.
Not true.
So at least a couple of vendors are still doing the x-and-y
implementation. Nevertheless, the IANA numbers 19, 20, and 21 have
referred for years to the x-only implementation as decribed in the RFC
4753 Errata. It appears that those who have been following the standard
correctly do not want their IANA numbers changed, and that is
reasonable. So we would like to leave RFC 4753-bis the way it is.
-- j
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
