All,
Sorry for my extended delay in responding...
On 12/4/15 6:30 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
> 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.The above is the view I hold as well. I talked through the "copy vs reference" with Tero and the WG chairs during my evaluation and reached the conclusion that the copy approach was fine in an Informational document. > > 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. I am pretty sure this has been done. Tero, can you confirm? Regards, Brian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
