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

Nicolas.Williams at sun.com (Nicolas Williams) Mon, 30 July 2007 16:00 UTC

From: Nicolas.Williams at sun.com (Nicolas Williams)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:00:10 -0500
Subject: [anonsec] Fwd: [openikev2-announce] New versions released !!!
In-Reply-To: <p06240513c2d3ac271c8d@[128.89.89.71]>
References: <1185527796.7989.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2A4BFA8D-DCDD-4DE9-B898-F2503130FFC2@checkpoint.com> <p06240503c2cfa98767f5@[172.28.170.89]> <C0F82729-0F0F-4F12-AAB2-A982919343E6@checkpoint.com> <p06240513c2d3ac271c8d@[128.89.89.71]>
Message-ID: <20070730160010.GD1199@Sun.COM>

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.

> 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.

In any case, the latest release of the particular implementation that
we're talking about is labelled as version 0.4, which might well be, for
all we know, an acknowledgement of the potential for backwards
incompatible changes as Internet-Drafts change backwards incompatibly.

Nico
--