> > The INTERMEDIATE draft explicitly allows to specify more than one > > roundtrip, and leaves > > the order of those exchanges to the documents introducing the new > > roundtrips > > It allows it, but that does not mean we want things to go in serial > when they could go in parallel :) > > > If I wrote a draft today that adds a single large Notify in an > > INTERMEDIATE exchange, > > it would not be obvious how it would interact with e.G. the hybrid KE > > that adds up to 7 > > additional INTERMEDIATE roundtrips. > > The draft should be clear on how to handle that. It should not depend > on having its payload in the very first INTERMEDIATE (since then all new > things would always all need to be there and at some point we are full > again) > > > I would have to explicitly specify in my draft that this additional > > Notify is always added to the first > > INTERMEDIATE specified in the Hybrid KE, if I wanted it to be there. > > I don't think we would allow you to do that. Because if another draft > insisted on the same thing, who gets to win?
The RFCs are always being published in serial :-) So, my idea that every new application RFC must define its relative order in regard to all already published application RFCs and whether piggybacking with each of them is allowed. Regards, Valery. > > Otherwise it could be added to any > > of the INTERMEDIATES in that draft, or to a new INTERMEDIATE before all > > hybrid KE ones, or to a new > > INTERMEDIATE after the hybrid KEs... > > Yes. ping pong for everyone :) > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
