On 04/12/15 23:23, Ben Campbell wrote: > > Do you see no chance that, sometime down the road, people might update > IKE but forget about this RFC?
Sure, could happen. But I think the versioning and all the alg ids etc take care of that. There are already (by design) valid ways to deploy the non-constrained side here that'd not interop with the constrained side implementing this. (E.g. using certs for starters!) So the kind of problem you envisage can already happen today and that's ok. But, it might be worth a look again to see if there are any fields used in this profile that could be likely to change with bad effects on this. I don't recall such, but good if someone could think about that. Cheers, S. > > I don't think the concern is limited to non-backwards compatible > updates; for example an update to IKE might be backwards compatible, but > add some new feature or optimization that could be beneficial for > constrained devices, but not reflected in this draft. > _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
