Re: [IPsec] WG adoptation call for draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-aux-02

["Tobias Guggemos" <[e-mail]>]

> 
> [I snipped some text to make message more readable]
> 
Same here :-)

> > The important thing I'd like to mention:
> > I think, if we can avoid an issue by design - by excluding an option
> > we don't necessarily need - we should do that and not the other way
> around.
> 
> I don't see it's an issue. More precisely, I can see it as a generic issue, not
> particularly concerned with empty INTERMEDIATE messages.
> 

I see your point and I think making explicitly sure that support/negotitation of IKE_INTERMEDIATE without an application addresses the comment anyway!

 
> > The current wording says: The implementation MAY support
> > IKE_INTERMEDIATE but MUST NOT use it without an application.
> > My preferred approach would be: The implementation MUST NOT support
> > IKE_INTERMEDIATE without an application.
> 
> OK, how about:
> 
> The implementation MUST NOT negotiate support for INTERMEDIATE
> without an application.
> 

That sounds good for me. 
The question remains if it is than necessary to negotiate INTERMEDIATE explicitly, but that this is something I really don't care too much! :-)

> > My thinking is, you'd like to negotiate an application  (e.g. PQKE)
> > which needs IKE_INTERMEDIATE, so it's all about the application anyway.
> > So if the application needs IKE_INTERMEDIATE, it wouldn't work if
> > IKE_INTERMEDIATE is not supported anyways.
> 
> It depends. I can imagine extensions that can run w/o INTERMEDIATE, but
> can benefit if it is supported...
> 

Good point!

> > > > I don't say this is the only way to go, but I feel it's cleaner
> > > > than just saying it could be anything. I'd actually prefer what I
> > > > mentioned above, not allowing IKE_INTERMEDIATE to be implemented
> > > > without
> > > another document defining the actual payload.
> > >
> > > Exactly, except that I'd s/implemented/used. You can implement a
> > > pure framework (just for the future), but you cannot use it without
> > > implementing another document utilizing it.
> >
> > Maybe we could replace "used" with "supported"?
> 
> is "negotiated" or "advertised support for" OK here?

I think I like negotiated!

> 
> Regards,
> Valery.
> 
> > Regards
> > Tobias