Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] [Last-Call] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-11.txt

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

> On 31 Oct 2020, at 15:12, tom petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 30/10/2020 22:42, Tero Kivinen wrote:
>> Roman Danyliw writes:
>>>>>> It seems to me that the IANA entries for IKEv2 are incomplete.
>>>>>> RFC8247 does a fine job of specifying algorithms and adding
>>>>>> information such as status (MUST/SHOULD+), IoT, AEAD and so on,
>>>>>> information which is not present on IANA.  The policy for, e.g.
>>>>>> Transform Type 1, is expert review and entries have been added via
>>>>>> draft-smyslov-esp-gont but the IANA entries lack this information
>>>>>> and, looking at the I-D, I see no such information (nor is there any
>>>>>> reason for it to be there).  Yet draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn... needs
>>>>>> this information as references in the YANG module show.
>> 
>> I am lost what information is missing from the IANA registry.
> 
> 
> Tero
> 
> Thanks for getting back to me.  What is missing from the IANA registry is the guidance as to the status of the algorithm, how highly it is recommended or not.  This I-D tells people to go to RFC8247 and the IANA Registry for advice; RFC8247 gives that advice; the IANA web page does not.

It’s possible to add a column in the IANA registry, but it is not possible to capture the information from 8247 in such a table. 

RFC 8247 has “MAY” and “SHOULD+” labels, but it also has comments and a bunch of explanation, such as that some algorithm is a SHOULD for IoT, but not otherwise. I think it’s better to point people at the RFC where the information is, rather than post very partial information in an IANA table.

Yoav