question about draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-07

latten@austin.ibm.com Wed, 29 October 2003 23:49 UTC

Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15384 for <ipsec-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:49:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA07044 Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:27:14 -0500 (EST)
From: latten@austin.ibm.com
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:53:44 -0600
Message-Id: <200310291953.h9TJriia017231@faith.austin.ibm.com>
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: question about draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-07
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk

In draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-07.txt, section 3.1, there is mention
of vendor ID payload to be passed in Phase 1, but it is not defined
in the draft nor in rfc 2409. I found mention of it in the draft
for ikev2, and just want to be sure that the VID payload mentioned
in this ikev2 draft is the same one to be passed in Phase 1 for ikev1
for NAT-T.

A while back someone asked about the IPR claim for draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike
and draft-ietf-ipsec-udp-encaps, because they were interested in
implementing.  I was wondering if there was any new info on this claim
or exactly what pieces of the technology are being claimed.
See http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MICROSOFT-NAT-Traversal.txt

Regards,
Joy