On Apr 22, 2013, at 4:58 AM, Johannes Merkle <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Based on the amount of new material, I want to have another (albeit shorter) >> WG Last Call for this new version of the draft. Please send comments to the >> WG by Monday, April 29. Note that if you did not participate in the earlier >> WG Last Call, you are strongly urged to do so now: the more review we get >> for our WG drafts, the better. Having said that, it would be useful to hear >> from those who commented in the first WG Last Call to say whether the >> changes are sufficient. >> > > > Please include draft-merkle-ikev2-ke-brainpool as informative reference and > include in Section 2.3 a reference to it. > Our draft defines new elliptic curves for IKEv2 for which the checks > specified in Section 2.3 are applicable and is > about to be published as RFC (RFC Ed Queue). This means that our draft will > update the registry before your draft does. > > Otherwise, our draft would have to wait for your draft to be published which > would introduce a considerable delay. For > this reason, IANA has requested from us to resolve the current deadlock. I'm confused. Could you send a copy of the message from IANA asking for you to "resolve the current deadlock"? I don't see any deadlock at all, so this might best be done by simply telling IANA to not block yours. This is not to say that draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks should not list the eventual RFC for draft-merkle-ikev2-ke-brainpool; it should. However, us adding that to the current draft should have no effect on IANA. As shepherd for draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks, I'm willing to deal with IANA on this. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
