Re: [IPsec] Last Call: <draft-kivinen-ipsecme-secure-password-framework-01.txt> (Secure Password Framework for IKEv2) to Informational RFC

[Tero Kivinen <[e-mail]>]

Yaron Sheffer writes:
> Back to the matter at hand: I am opposed to 
> draft-kivinen-ipsecme-secure-password-framework. It has served its 
> purpose when two of the proposals were changed to add method 
> negotiation, and thus enable IKE peers to implement none, one or more of 
> these methods.

Actually there is currently only one draft, draft-shin-augmented-pake,
which follows my negotiation process. The
draft-harkins-ipsecme-spsk-auth author did say he is going to change
his draft, but the draft is not yet there, and then there is
draft-kuegler-ipsecme-pace-ikev2 (which you are co-author) which is
doing negotiation differently and I do not know whether that is going
to change to use same way than others.

> I believe the other justifications for this draft, including the
> preservation of IANA IKEv2 namespaces, are bogus.

As an IANA Expert for the registries in question I strongly disagree.

If you want to delay this fight to the IANA allocation time, that is
fine by me, but I will point it out already now that I will be against
allocating separate code points for each protocol as there is no need
for that.

> Adopting the rest of the framework would be a useless exercise.

Keeping the IANA registries clean is important for me, in addition to
make it easy to implement multiple methods in the same implementation.
I do not consider them as useless resons. Especially as it only causes
very small changes to the actual protocol drafts (I would expect less
than an one hour of work).
-- 
[e-mail]