[IPsec] Question on IPSEC Identification Type" registry
Paul Wouters <paul@cypherpunks.ca> Fri, 04 April 2014 21:43 UTC
Return-Path: <paul@cypherpunks.ca>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A57B1A012E for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 14:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dtiv6o0BczuS for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 14:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C557B1A00EC for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 14:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F69813B1 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 17:43:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (paul@localhost) by bofh.nohats.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id s34Lh6RZ022009 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 17:43:06 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: bofh.nohats.ca: paul owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 17:43:06 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@cypherpunks.ca>
X-X-Sender: paul@bofh.nohats.ca
To: "ipsec@ietf.org WG" <ipsec@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1404041732520.16687@bofh.nohats.ca>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/oE7P2-hl_FVPanWnRfIWJ2LiC24
Subject: [IPsec] Question on IPSEC Identification Type" registry
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 21:43:18 -0000
According to RFC 3554 (SCTP with IPsec): IANA has assigned number 12 for ID_LIST (defined in Section 3) in the "IPSEC Identification Type" registry which matches: http://www.iana.org/assignments/isakmp-registry/isakmp-registry.xhtml#isakmp-registry-31 But for IKEv2 we have: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/ikev2-parameters.xhtml#ikev2-parameters-10 12 ID_FC_NAME [RFC4595] (IKEv2 values for Fibre Channel) which on top of that is also not a real IKE value... I guess I'm not the first to run into this. Angelos ran into this in 2003: http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-ipsec/03.ipsec/msg01723.html I'm not sure how one conveys ID_LIST for SCTP in IKEv2. But perhaps no one really cared to fix this? (I don't) I guess at this point there is nothing much to do, possible add a warning note to the IANA registries for implementors.... I wish we could have kept these two registries more in sync..... Paul, off to split v1 and v2 versions of this now
- [IPsec] Question on IPSEC Identification Type" re… Paul Wouters
- [IPsec] Question on IPSEC Identification Type" re… Tero Kivinen