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

kent at bbn.com (Stephen Kent) Mon, 30 July 2007 14:58 UTC

From: "kent at bbn.com"
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:58:54 -0400
Subject: [anonsec] Fwd: [openikev2-announce] New versions released !!!
In-Reply-To: <C0F82729-0F0F-4F12-AAB2-A982919343E6@checkpoint.com>
References: <1185527796.7989.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2A4BFA8D-DCDD-4DE9-B898-F2503130FFC2@checkpoint.com> <p06240503c2cfa98767f5@[]> <C0F82729-0F0F-4F12-AAB2-A982919343E6@checkpoint.com>
Message-ID: <p06240513c2d3ac271c8d@[]>

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 :-).

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.

>We've had IKEv2 interoperability workshops months before RFC 4306.

Before the RFC was issued (after several months in the RFC Editor's 
queue), or before the document was approved by the IESG?

>There are also lots of implementations of SCEP and that hasn't made 
>it to historic yet.

That's an irrelevant example, i.e., a protocol developed outside the 
IETF which may be published as historic, as a compromise.