[anonsec] Fwd: [openikev2-announce] New versions released !!!

kent at bbn.com (Stephen Kent) Mon, 30 July 2007 16:30 UTC

From: kent at bbn.com (Stephen Kent)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:30:02 -0400
Subject: [anonsec] Fwd: [openikev2-announce] New versions released !!!
In-Reply-To: <20070730160010.GD1199@Sun.COM>
References: <1185527796.7989.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2A4BFA8D-DCDD-4DE9-B898-F2503130FFC2@checkpoint.com> <p06240503c2cfa98767f5@[]> <C0F82729-0F0F-4F12-AAB2-A982919343E6@checkpoint.com> <p06240513c2d3ac271c8d@[]> <20070730160010.GD1199@Sun.COM>
Message-ID: <p06240519c2d3c2194128@[]>

At 11:00 AM -0500 7/30/07, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:58:54AM -0400, Stephen Kent wrote:
>>  At 4:55 PM -0500 7/27/07, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>  >As long as it's running code...
>>  Windows is running code too, but it's not an IETF standard :-).
>Implementations aren't, though they might be standards compliant, but
>since the IETF doesn't have any sort of compliance testing, compliance
>is up to the vendors to test for and up to the customers to test for and
>insist on.

or to have third-party labs validate.

>  > If CheckPoint wants to declare something it implemented as being
>>  BTNS, despite the lack of an IESG-approved document, and in light of
>>  the ongoing changes to the document, I guess it's a good marketing
>>  ploy, if not good IETF behavior.
>It happens a lot in the IETF.  For at least some Internet protocols
>vendors have shipped long before the RFCs issued.

note my distinction between RFC issuance vs. IESG approval. Once the 
IESG approves a document is may take many months (it used to be as 
long as a year) for the RFC to be issued, but the substance of the 
standard is fixed.