Brian Haberman writes: > > 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?
I do not remember there being anything that would be easily affected. Also as currently extensions are done in the way where the initiator tells that it supports some extension, and then responder confirms that, this will mean that when minimal client will NOT claim to support some extension then responder will not use that feature (and do not even include any of the payloads negotiating it). Also extensions are usually negotiated using notify payloads using status notify types (which can be safely be ignored by recipient end if they are not understood), minimal implementations will simply ignore the other ends notifications which try to negotiate the extensions, which will then cause extensions to be disabled. I think I agree on the statement that if we make so big changes to the IKEv2 that it would really affect minimal implementations, that would be IKEv3... And if we do end up having this issue, we can just make bis version of this document, and update it. This might happen anyways depending how the new EC curves and signatures will be taken in to use and what kind of features we are going to be using. After few years we might see that minimal implementations in actual use are using more features than what our current minimal implementations are using, and we might want to update this document to specify features those implementations are using. -- [email protected] _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
