Michael Richardson writes:
> Why did we skip
> IKEv2_UNASSIGNED_17 = 17,
>
> for IKEv2 Encryption Transforms?
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/ikev2-parameters.xhtml#ikev2-parameters-5
The original draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-aes-gcm [1] had four differnet ICV
lengths: 4, 8, 12, and 16 octets, and they got numbers for all of them
[2]:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IANA has assigned four ESP Transform Identifiers for AES-GCM with
an eight-byte explicit IV:
<TBD1> for AES-GCM with a 4 octet ICV;
<TBD2> for AES-GCM with an 8 octet ICV;
<TBD3> for AES-GCM with a 12 octet ICV; and
<TBD4> for AES-GCM with a 16 octet ICV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then after the IESG approval the 4 octet ICV was removed from the RFC
4106 (most likely it was considered unsafe and too short), but IANA
had most likely already given out the numbers, thus the final numbers
for 8, 12, 16 octet versions came to be 18, 19, and 20, and the number
17 which was most likely allocated for the 4 octet ICV was marked as
reserved.
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-aes-gcm-00
[2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/current/msg01012.html
--
kivi...@iki.fi
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
