Re: [IPsec] #123: Proposal to remove the IANA tables from IKEv2bis

Typically IETF specs don't require someone implementing RFC NNNN to
actually find and read the IANA registry -- all the needed numbers are
in the RFC. (The IANA registry is just an IETF process tool for making 
sure the same number doesn't get used for multiple purposes, not
part of the actual protocol specification.)

Perhaps the "reserved to IANA: 12-200" etc. lines are slightly
confusing, and we could omit them (and say something like "this
document specifies the meaning of these values; to find what
values are specified in other documents, go look at the IANA
registry")

Best regards,
Pasi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of ext Paul Hoffman
> Sent: 24 November, 2009 02:37
> To: IPsecme WG
> Subject: [IPsec] #123: Proposal to remove the IANA tables from IKEv2bis
> 
> This has flummoxed a few reviewers. Tables such as those in section
> 3.3.2 are already out of date because things have been added since RFC
> 4306. I propose that we remove all these tables from IKEv2bis, and add
> notes pointing to the current IANA registries. I cannot see how doing
> this lookup will hurt developers: in fact, it forces them to actually
> look at the up-to-date tables. I can see how we might want to leave the
> tables in, but it really is confusing.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec