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

Hi Paul,

I have marked below with an asterisk those that I think should stay in the document, because they are important to understanding/implementing the protocol.

Overall, I'm not sure this exercise is worth our time. In particular if we strip tables of their values, there's a high risk of introducing inconsistencies between the document and the IANA registry.

Thanks,
	Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 19:31
> To: IPsecme WG
> Subject: Re: [IPsec] #123: Proposal to remove the IANA tables from
> IKEv2bis
> 
> Yes, I should have worked this out more fully before posting.
> 
> In all cases, I would add a reference to the IANA registry.
> 
> Only lists code points: remove the whole table
>   2.22: IPComp Tranform IDs
>   3.1: Exchange types [*]
>   3.3.1: Protocol ID [*]
>   3.3.2: Encryption, PRF, integrity, DH group, ESN
>   3.3.5: Transform attributes [* ??]
>   3.15: CFG type [*]
> 
> Lists semantics, remove the code points but leave the semantics:
>   3.5: Identification types 
>   3.10.1: Notify messages
>   3.13.1: Traffic selectors
> 
> Other:
>  3.2: Next payload type -- remove value
>  3.3.2: Transform type -- remove type number
>  3.3.3: Transform types by protocol -- leave in whole table
>  3.6: Certificate encoding -- remove type number, leave in UNSPECIFIED
>  3.15.1: Attribute types -- remove type number
> 
> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
> 
> Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.