<hat on="no"> On Nov 6, 2013, at 10:41 AM, Tero Kivinen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Do we have enough implementations of EC groups to progress RFC 5903? I >> realize that NSA RFCs are not that popular nowadays... > > No. Because the mess with RFC5903 and RFC 4753, i.e. reusing the same > IANA values for two different non-interoperable uses of the groups, I > cannot say there is enough interoperable use for that RFC. Nor can you say that there is *not* enough interoperable use. As others have pointed out, there are lots implementations, and as far as I have heard, all current implementations are using RFC 5930. > I have recommended everybody not to use them, as you never know if > they work, as you do not know if the other end is upgraded to Errata > version of 4753 (i.e. RFC5903). That's fine if you want to recommend it; many implementors are ignoring you and interoperating just fine. On Nov 7, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Tero Kivinen <[email protected]> wrote: > As an IANA expert I said we are going to allocate new numbers for > this, but area directors were against this and they managed to talk me > out it (unfortunately, I still think it would have been much better to > allocate new numbers). The only comment why keep original numbers was > that there was ONE implementation out there that used them, and that > implementation would never get updated to include new numbers if we > allocated them. I myself considered this as very weak reason, but > other people had different opinions. BTW most of this discussion > happened face-to-face, not in the mailing list. That may all be true, but it is also irrelevant to whether the RFC itself should advance. The IANA values are not in question: only the bits on the wire are covered in the RFCs. The bits on the wire in RFC 5930 are highly interoperable, as shown by many different implementations (possibly even yours). <hat on="yes"> Do others in the WG feel that the issues Tero brought up are significant enough to prevent RFC 5930 from advancing on the standards track? --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
