On Nov 20, 2013, at 10:36, [email protected] wrote: > > On Nov 19, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Yaron Sheffer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 11/19/2013 11:06 PM, Stephen Kent wrote: >>> updated versions of RFC 4301, 4302, and 4303 have been posted: >>> >>> >> Thank you Steve for working on these drafts. These drafts are targeted at >> republication as Internet Standards. As promised in Vancouver, I would like >> to open the question of whether we should be republishing RFC 4302 - AH. >> >> My personal opinion is that we should not. We have downgraded AH and >> consistently discouraged its use, replacing it by ESP-null. People are >> obviously free to implement it even if it remains Proposed Standard, but why >> give the wrong message by promoting it to IS? > > I agree with that. > > paul
My thinking around also uplifting AH to IS was based on conversations with authors of the following draft when it came to the IESG: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report/ I’m double checking that they did in fact implement AH based on RFC 4601 or whether they implemented ESP based on RFC 5796. I like to propose that we postpone the discussion of progressing AH until I report back, but I would like to proceed with moving 4301 and 4303 to IS. The only real difference is that downrefs to RFC 4302 will need to be called out in the IETF LCs to other drafts. spt
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
