I submitted new version of the rfc4307bis draft, which includes following changes:
Changed ENCR_AES_CBC from MUST- to MUST. The WG meeting was in favor of doing this change, and if you are against this change, say so now... Added the IANA considerations section to rename the AES-GCM with an/a x octet ICV to ENCR_AES_GCM_x, and ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM with an/a x-octet ICV with ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_x. This includes also renaming them in the actual text (ENCR_AES_GCM_16) and adding piece to the abstract. In the meeting there was brought up a point how do new implementors know that ENCR_AES_GCM_x in the IANA registry maps to the name in the RFC4106 when they do not match exactly. I talked to IANA about this and gave few options: 1) Change reference to this document, and this document would then refer to the original. 2) Add both references to the references field, instead replacing the reference. 3) Adding new column saying formely known as 4) Adding footnotes saying this was renamed in RFCxxxx etc... In the end I think the best option would be to just include both RFCs in the references column, i.e. make the final table to be something like this: Number Name ESP Reference IKEv2 Reference ... 18 ENCR_AES_GCM_8 [RFC4106][RFCXXXX] [RFC5282][RFCXXXX] 19 ENCR_AES_GCM_12 [RFC4106][RFCXXXX] [RFC5282][RFCXXXX] 20 ENCR_AES_GCM_16 [RFC4106][RFCXXXX] [RFC5282][RFCXXXX] ... 25 ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_8 [RFC5529][RFCXXXX] - 26 ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_12 [RFC5529][RFCXXXX] - 27 ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_16 [RFC5529][RFCXXXX] - where the RFCXXX would be this RFC. Check out the IANA considerations section and comment if there is something you are not happy about. I will myself talk to the IANA about this, and verify that we included everything they want us to include... Luckily the IANA expert for the registry most likely will not object :-) -- kivi...@iki.fi _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
