Re: Remove private-use values from IKEv2
Paul Hoffman / VPNC <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 15 March 2002 04:54 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 g2F4sQ406884; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 20:54:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA08790 Thu, 14 Mar 2002 23:16:08 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: phoffvpnc@mail.vpnc.org
Message-Id: <p0510141bb8b726c6e25a@[165.227.249.20]>
In-Reply-To: <200203142342.g2ENgHx00742@fatty.lounge.org>
References: <200203142342.g2ENgHx00742@fatty.lounge.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 20:26:58 -0800
To: Dan Harkins <dharkins@tibernian.com>
From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: Remove private-use values from IKEv2
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk
At 3:42 PM -0800 3/14/02, Dan Harkins wrote: >How can you do a tunnel discovery protocol *in* a vendor ID payload? Like Jan said, using the first part as the ID and the rest of the payload as a TLV list (or ASN.1 or whatever). >The only reason to try to test interoperability of implementations using >private use values is because the thing they are doing with private use >values cannot be done in a standard fashion and that thing is important >enough that multi-vendor interoperability is important. > >But if it is that important then why don't we come up with a standard way >to do it? Politics is one. Bureaucracy and WG inertia is another (that >it takes longer for the WG to decide something than for huge companies >to go through two complete product cycles is sad). > >If a solution to a problem that people are demanding a solution to is >either politically forbidden or only likely to to come out in 3-5 years >then vendors are going to bypass the process. > >Taking away private use values because people are misusing them (how to >standardize something outside of the standardization process) will only >cause the workarounds they devise to be more novel and problematic. We >should fix the problem that is causing them to misuse the private use >values in the first place. We completely agree here. Any you have already covered it in Section 10.3: new payload numbers are allocated when getting an RFC published, not by waiting around for the WG. That is the right way to do things, particularly because at some point this WG is supposed to shut down. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium
- Re: Remove private-use values from IKEv2 Paul Hoffman / VPNC
- Remove private-use values from IKEv2 Paul Hoffman / VPNC
- Re: Remove private-use values from IKEv2 Dan Harkins
- Re: Remove private-use values from IKEv2 Jan Vilhuber
- RE: Remove private-use values from IKEv2 Andrew Krywaniuk
- Re: Remove private-use values from IKEv2 Dan Harkins
- Re: Remove private-use values from IKEv2 Paul Hoffman / VPNC
- Re: Remove private-use values from IKEv2 Jan Vilhuber
- Re: Remove private-use values from IKEv2 Dan Harkins
- Re: Remove private-use values from IKEv2 Michael Richardson
- Comment on draft-ike-implementation regarding non… Andrew Krywaniuk
- Re: Comment on draft-ike-implementation regarding… Henry Spencer
- Re: Comment on draft-ike-implementation regarding… Dan Harkins
- Re: Comment on draft-ike-implementation regarding… Henry Spencer