More on algorithms for IKEv2

Paul Hoffman / VPNC <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sat, 17 May 2003 18:21 UTC

Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12164 for <ipsec-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 17 May 2003 14:21:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA25241 Sat, 17 May 2003 12:12:57 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: phoffvpnc@mail.vpnc.org
Message-Id: <p0521060bbaec10159ead@[63.202.92.152]>
In-Reply-To: <541402FFDC56DA499E7E13329ABFEA87E66D97@SARATOGA.netscreen.com>
References: <541402FFDC56DA499E7E13329ABFEA87E66D97@SARATOGA.netscreen.com>
X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring
X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated
X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm)
X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm)
X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this
X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas
X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant
X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this
X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to <http://www.habeas.com/report>.
Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 09:18:18 -0700
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: More on algorithms for IKEv2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk

Based on Gregory's comments and talking to Charlie, I revised my 
IKEv2 algorithms document. It's now at 
<ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-ipsec-algorithms-02.txt>. 
The major change was to move the MODP groups from the main IKEv2 
document into the algorithms document, but I also corrected the typos 
that Greogy pointed out and updated the reference to RFC 3526 and 
made the IANA considerations clearer.

On thing that Gregory asked for that I didn't do (yet) is:

>  > >- format help: would be nice in 2.1-2.4 to add a 4th column
>>  to each chart
>>  >that holds MUST, SHOULD, etc. That way the reader can see
>>  what's what very
>>  >quickly.
>>
>>  I didn't do that because of the difference between "MUST today" and
>>  "MUST tomorrow". That is, I wanted to keep the wording below the
>>  tables being definitive.
>
>no argument about keeping the wording; I wouldn't have suggested removing
>it. Adding the column will make ingestion easier on the reader.
>Additionally, you could put a "*" by the SHOULD that calls to text below
>highlighting the "MUST Later" stuff.

I'm willing to do that if people want it, but I don't consider it all 
that hard for someone reading the document to look at the paragraph 
after the table to figure out the MUST and SHOULD requirements.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium