Paul Wouters writes: > On Tue, 31 Mar 2015, Tero Kivinen wrote: > > > How has that happened. Hmmm... looking at the archives that was there > > from the beginning. And those assignments which were done at the same > > time as RFC4306 was published (i.e. RFC4309 and RFC4106) never went > > through the IANA Expert review, hey were simply added to registry > > without asking from anybody... > > > > This was the time when we had some communications issues between IANA > > and experts... > > Is that when Camellia went through as well? :P with different numbers > for IKEv1 and IKEv2 :P [insert implementer anger :)]
The Camellia RFC 4312 only allocated numbers for IKEv1 not for IKEv2. The IKEv2 then got few allocations (ENCR_NULL_AUTH_AES_GMAC, and one for XTS-AES) between and the number 22 was not available anymore when the RFC to allocate CAMELLIA for IKEv2 came through, or to be more accurate, when the authors of RFC4312 wanted to do IANA allocation for CAMELLIA_CBC for IKEv2 too. I said as if it is going to be different number, better write new RFC, and while they did that they also added CTR, and CCM modes in it... Anyways there is no real reason to keep the IKEv1 and IKEv2. The reason we had different registries was that they are two different protocols, and for example in the IKEv2 the Encryption Algorithms registry was used by both IKEv2 SA and ESP, as in IKEv1 there were separate registries for them. Also IKEv1 is used with ESPv2 and cannot really support combine mode ciphers, but that didn't stop people defining them in IKEv1 registries too. So it was clear that they would get out of sync at one point, so each implementation had to solve that somehow anyway. The initial registries were compatible to make supporting boht IKEv1 and IKEv2, but after that changes happen. > > If people feel it would be better to fix those, we can do that, i.e. > > change: > > > Or even go wild and change them: > > > > 14 ENCR_AES_CCM_8 > > 15 ENCR_AES_CCM_12 > > 16 ENCR_AES_CCM_16 > > 18 ENCR_AES_GCM_8 > > 19 ENCR_AES_GCM 12 > > 20 ENCR_AES_GCM_16 > > 25 ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_8 > > 26 ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_12 > > 27 ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_16 > > It would be great if we could do that! But if we can change these, why > can we not also change "-" into "_" ? I did that, but seem to have missed one " " in ENCR_AES_GCM 12" -- [email protected] _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
