Re: [IPsec] Mirja Kuehlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipsecme-tcp-encaps-09: (with DISCUSS)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

On May 3, 2017 05:54, "Mirja Kühlewind" <[e-mail]> wrote:

I didn't propose to obsolete RFC3947 in this document. I guess you can also
file an error for this if you don't want to take any further actions.
However, for updating the IANA registry, I would say the right action is to
do this simply by IESG approval for UDP then.


Fwiw, that would work for me.

Spencer



Mirja



On 03.05.2017 11:12, Tero Kivinen wrote:

> Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) writes:
>
>> my thinking was that the main problem is that 3947 was not obsoleted
>> and I’m assuming we need a document to fix that.
>>
>
> This is partly issue, but it is not issue we need to solve here, as
> this document is not something that should obsolete 3947.
>
> Also 3947 only defines extension for the IKEv1 (RFC2409) and that is
> already obsoleted, so effectively RFC3947 is already obsoleted, as
> there is no way to implement 3947 without implementing obsoleted
> protocol...
>
> This issue is not not important enough to require RFC now.
>
> In this case that document could/should also fix the IANA entry for
>> the UDP port. However, I’m actually not sure what the right
>> processing would be to fix this forgotten obsolete… maybe other ADs
>> know better…?
>>
>
> For now I would just leave it as it is, but fix the references in the
> IANA registry so that document will not be referenced, especially as
> the original IANA reference was not to the correct RFC in the first
> place.
>
> Otherwise if you don’t want to do this, I don’t think it’s a good
>> idea to merge kind of unrelated fixes into this spec. We can also
>> fix that by using the IESG approval process (see RFC5226). I think
>> that’s the better option!
>>
>
> That is true, but as this document already modifies the TCP/4500
> reference, fixing the UDP/4500 reference at the same time is not
> completely unrelated fix.
>
> Obsoleting RFC3947 would be unrelated fix.
>
>