Re: IPsec IANA registry
Paul Hoffman / VPNC <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 10 April 2002 20:49 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 g3AKnWm22611; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA20483 Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:11:15 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: phoffvpnc@mail.vpnc.org
Message-Id: <p0510150eb8da4f38b19c@[165.227.249.20]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.1020410150806.26870K-100000@spsystems.net>
References: <Pine.BSI.3.91.1020410150806.26870K-100000@spsystems.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:23:00 -0700
To: Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net>, IP Security List <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: IPsec IANA registry
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk
At 3:11 PM -0400 4/10/02, Henry Spencer wrote: >On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote: >> In group (c), there are a bunch of EC numbers from now-expired >> Internet Drafts that are expected to be re-issued and probably move >> to RFC. Also in group (c), Marcus Leech reserved values for AES and >> SHA-2 on the assumption that Internet Drafts and RFCs would follow... > >There is also the infamous group 5, although we can hope that it will >"go straight" with draft-ietf-ipsec-ike-modp-groups-04.txt or some >immediate descendant thereof. No, the "infamous group 5" was removed from the proposed registry because it had erroneously been listed as part of an RFC. There is no 5 listed there. And, yes, it would be grand if we could move some of the Internet Drafts that are fully baked and simply getting moldy to RFC status. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium
- IPsec IANA registry Paul Hoffman / VPNC
- Re: IPsec IANA registry Henry Spencer
- Re: IPsec IANA registry Paul Hoffman / VPNC
- Re: IPsec IANA registry Paul Hoffman / VPNC