On 11/29/12 9:15 AM, Sean Turner wrote:
On 11/29/12 8:51 AM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
Tero Kivinen writes:
My draft draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-02.txt defines new way to
send any type of raw public keys inside IKEv2. RFC5996 only allows
sending RSA raw public keys. This means after this we would have two
ways to do send RSA raw public keys, old RFC5996 and new format define
din my draft.
3) Obsolete old format
Make old RFC 5996 format as MUST NOT, and officially obsolete
it. This means all implementations should switch to new format
as soon as possible. This document must be standard track, and
update RFC5996.
In the discussion we did not found out that there would have been wide
use for the old RFC 5996 defined RSA raw public key, so feeling was
that it would be possible to obsolete the old format. It was
considered a bad idea to keep two ways of doing same thing.
So now I want to know if anybody have anything against if we do just
that, i.e. pick the 3rd option and obsolete the old RSA raw public key
format.
As there as not been any objections to this change, I will change my
draft to say that RFC 5996 format is MUST NOT, and obsolete the old
RSA public key format. The new draft is already posted as
draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-03.txt.
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey/
Diff:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-02&difftype=--html&submit=Go!&url2=draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-03
The another question is whether this document needs to be WG document
or not. As it seems to be that we are updating the RFC5996 and
obsoleting stuff from it, there seemed to be some people who felt that
this should be WG document. Send your comments about this too.
Only comment to this in the list was from Michael supporting of making
this to WG document (especially if it can fit to charter).
Yaron said in the meeting that he was unhappy this being individual
since it obsoletes old format.
So now we need a comment from the ADs and/or chairs whether they feel
that this fits our current charter (maintain the IPsec standard and to
facilitate discussion of clarifications, improvements, and extensions
to IPsec, mostly to IKEv2) or do we need to update the charter.
The one sentence change to add this to the charter is on today's telechat.
Ugh .. I sent it in too late so it's on the next telechat.
spt
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
