Re: [IPsec] Preliminary minutes for the IPsecME meeting

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019, Valery Smyslov wrote:

> The RFCs are always being published in serial :-)

We have clusters :)

> So, my idea that every new application RFC must define its relative
> order in regard to all already published application RFCs
> and whether piggybacking with each of them is allowed.

Joking aside, I do feel it is important that the intermediate exchange
is a general concept, and should have the least amounts of hooks and
order of payloads or what not. I do not think it is a good idea to
insist on building a linked list of RFCs/payloads. The generic model of
IKE is payloads can be in any order. And if a payload won't fit in the
first intermediary exchange, it should be able to send it in the next
one without knowing anything about the other things going on.

Of course, there are exceptions, such as if we need QSKE before our new
imaginary payloads, but than those payloads might belong better in
IKE_AUTH.

Paul