Re: [IPsec] draft-mcgrew-ipsec-me-esp-ah-reqts

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 06 November 2012 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61B4A21F8ABF for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:25:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.753
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.753 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.201, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rPRY1MOHyIHo for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:25:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E450221F88DC for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:25:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (dhcp-1280.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.18.128]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A26981A9 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 13:17:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (quigon.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C921CA0BC for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 13:25:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <747787E65E3FBD4E93F0EB2F14DB556B0F507A5D@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <747787E65E3FBD4E93F0EB2F14DB556B0F507A5D@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "David McGrew (mcgrew)" <mcgrew@cisco.com> message dated "Tue, 06 Nov 2012 00:16:07 +0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:25:24 -0500
Message-ID: <1802.1352226324@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Subject: Re: [IPsec] draft-mcgrew-ipsec-me-esp-ah-reqts
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:25:26 -0000

David McGrew (mcgrew) <mcgrew@cisco.com> wrote:
    DM> My thinking was that it makes sense for the document to mention
    DM> the algorithm options that had been defined at the time of
    DM> writing, so the reader isn't left wondering.  There are other

Surely we have lots of vanity crypto which has code points which aren't
in this document.?

    DM> Someone mentioned in the WG meeting that algorithms that were
    DM> previously SHOULDs, but have been deprecated to MAYs, should be
    DM> included in the tables going forward, so that the reader doesn't
    DM> wonder where it went.  This seems like a good point to me.
    DM> AES-CTR is the one algorithm in that category in the draft so
    DM> far.

I agree with this.

-- 
Michael Richardson
-on the road-