Re: [IPsec] IKEv2 Diffie-Hellman Elliptic curve mess (RFC4753, RFC5114, RFC4869, and draft-solinas-rfc4753bis-01)

  I agree with Jerome's opinion. Let's leave 19, 20, and 21 the way
they are. If there is confusion between the 2 RFCs than let's fix it
in a -bis favoring the former of the two.

  Dan.

On Fri, January 22, 2010 10:48 am, Jerome A. Solinas wrote:
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> First off, thank you for bringing the topic to the WG. As the Designated
>> Expert, you are certainly allowed to make decisions without asking, so
>> it is extra nice that you ask on decisions that might be controversial.
>>
>> On this particular topic, I would note that RFC 4753 is Informational
>> RFC, not a standards-track document. Thus, I would think that desires of
>> the authors of the RFC should have a heavier influence than the rest of
>> us, although our input might be important inputs to them (and maybe to
>> the Designated Expert). Maybe we should put the issue aside until we
>> hear from them, which could be after the holiday.
>>
>> --Paul Hoffman, Director
>>
> We would recommend keeping the same numbers (19, 20, 21) since it
> appears that all existing implementations have made the correction.
> Also, we would prefer to keep RFC4753 and RFC5114 distinct since we'd
> like to keep a separate document as a Suite B reference.  If the
> inclusion of the three ECP groups in two different standards is causing
> confusion, it might be worth thinking about removing them from the
> upcoming RFC5114 update.
>
> -- Jerome A. Solinas, RFC4753 coauthor
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>