Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) writes: > my thinking was that the main problem is that 3947 was not obsoleted > and I’m assuming we need a document to fix that.
This is partly issue, but it is not issue we need to solve here, as this document is not something that should obsolete 3947. Also 3947 only defines extension for the IKEv1 (RFC2409) and that is already obsoleted, so effectively RFC3947 is already obsoleted, as there is no way to implement 3947 without implementing obsoleted protocol... This issue is not not important enough to require RFC now. > In this case that document could/should also fix the IANA entry for > the UDP port. However, I’m actually not sure what the right > processing would be to fix this forgotten obsolete… maybe other ADs > know better…? For now I would just leave it as it is, but fix the references in the IANA registry so that document will not be referenced, especially as the original IANA reference was not to the correct RFC in the first place. > Otherwise if you don’t want to do this, I don’t think it’s a good > idea to merge kind of unrelated fixes into this spec. We can also > fix that by using the IESG approval process (see RFC5226). I think > that’s the better option! That is true, but as this document already modifies the TCP/4500 reference, fixing the UDP/4500 reference at the same time is not completely unrelated fix. Obsoleting RFC3947 would be unrelated fix. -- kivi...@iki.fi _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
