I meant to CC ipsec@, but I'm not sure I actually succeeded. My email to i...@ietf.org was really about doing this kind of thing in general, and having reference.*.xml files for the registries to make this easy.
I noticed that actually in rfc7296, we actually have a reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7296#ref-IKEV2IANA [IKEV2IANA] IANA, "Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2) Parameters", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/>. I wonder if adding such a reference (or references with #anchors) would be an acceptable AUTH48 addition. https://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/ikev2-parameters.xhtml#ikev2-parameters-6 Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > I'm implementing draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis. > It basically sets MUST/SHOULD/etc. values for various algorithms. The IPsec(ME) > WG updates things as the world evolves. > "References to the specification > defining these algorithms are in the IANA registry." > It would be nice if it gave the actual name of the Registry. > But, I think in this hyperlinked internet, it really should reference the > registry itself directly. > So I wonder out loud: shouldn't all of the IANA registries have clear > reference files that could be normatively referenced? > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
