IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IKEv2 (son-of-ike) draft

Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net> Tue, 20 November 2001 21:50 UTC

Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fAKLoO824726; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:50:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA13480 Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:49:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:58:29 -0500
From: Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net>
To: Ari Huttunen <Ari.Huttunen@f-secure.com>
cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: Re: IKEv2 (son-of-ike) draft
In-Reply-To: <3BF9F823.C07A090C@F-Secure.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.91.1011120135258.28357A-100000@spsystems.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Ari Huttunen wrote:
> - If, as I understand, there is to be a 'selection' as to what will
>   be the next IKE, what chance has anybody against a protocol that is
>   named draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-00.txt?

It's like the old languages question, "what comes after C -- D or P?".
(C was the language after B, but was that in the alphabet or in "BCPL"?)

In this case, what's the successor to IKE -- IKEv2 or JFK?  Just because
the current protocol is named IKE doesn't mean the next will be IKEv2.
The successor to IPv4 is not IPv5...

> - IKEv2 must be well defined.

Strongly concur.  The worse thing about IKE is how vaguely it's defined.
At first glance, IKEv2 does seem an improvement, but any remaining fuzzy
spots need to be cleared up now.

                                                          Henry Spencer
                                                       henry@spsystems.net

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status