Re: [IPsec] New WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks

Paul Hoffman <> Mon, 22 April 2013 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE4E21E803D for <>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.549
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SmUm3GohEIjY for <>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E3511E80CC for <>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3MHGgRN040254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:16:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Paul Hoffman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:16:42 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Johannes Merkle <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: IPsecme WG <>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] New WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:16:45 -0000

On Apr 22, 2013, at 4:58 AM, Johannes Merkle <> wrote:

>> Based on the amount of new material, I want to have another (albeit shorter) WG Last Call for this new version of the draft. Please send comments to the WG by Monday, April 29. Note that if you did not participate in the earlier WG Last Call, you are strongly urged to do so now: the more review we get for our WG drafts, the better. Having said that, it would be useful to hear from those who commented in the first WG Last Call to say whether the changes are sufficient.
> Please include draft-merkle-ikev2-ke-brainpool as informative reference and include in Section 2.3 a reference to it.
> Our draft defines new elliptic curves for IKEv2 for which the checks specified in Section 2.3 are applicable and is
> about to be published as RFC (RFC Ed Queue). This means that our draft will update the registry before your draft does.
> Otherwise, our draft would have to wait for your draft to be published which would introduce a considerable delay. For
> this reason, IANA has requested from us to resolve the current deadlock.

I'm confused. Could you send a copy of the message from IANA asking for you to "resolve the current deadlock"? I don't see any deadlock at all, so this might best be done by simply telling IANA to not block yours.

This is not to say that draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks should not list the eventual RFC for draft-merkle-ikev2-ke-brainpool; it should. However, us adding that to the current draft should have no effect on IANA.

As shepherd for draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks, I'm willing to deal with IANA on this.

--Paul Hoffman