Re: [secdir] [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-harkins-brainpool-ike-groups-00.txt

"Dan Harkins" <> Tue, 28 August 2012 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C24621F860E; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.223
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.223 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hnwXmhWmsPiu; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1144721F860B; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DCFB1022404A; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (SquirrelMail authenticated user by with HTTP; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>, <> <DDAF3F15-4C72-4CC9-AC4D-29D7496A7BD3@mimectl> <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Dan Harkins" <>
To: "Paul Hoffman" <>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.14 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Cc: IPsecme WG <>, secdir <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-harkins-brainpool-ike-groups-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:54:10 -0000

On Tue, August 28, 2012 11:18 am, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Dan Harkins <>; wrote:
>> When the IEEE liaison brought up this issue, your co-chairman
>> said, "Yaron and I should "not* be part of this discussion because
>> the issue is *not* an IPsecME WG issue. It is not in our charter
>> to make additions to the obsoleted-but-still-widely-used IKEv1
>> protocol." He is also the one who insisted on the note that the
>> draft adds to the registry, which sort of makes this not an IKE
>> code point discussion.
> I was with you until that last phrase. It most certainly is an IKEv1 code
> point discussion.

  If you insist that the registry say "not for IKEv1" then the
code points are not for IKEv1 and any discussion about code points
that are not for IKEv1 is not an IKEv1 code point discussion.

>>  If this is an IKE discussion, I'd be happy to discuss this on the
>> ipsecme list and I'd be, therefore, happy to remove the note and the
>> corresponding "Insecurity Considerations" from the draft.
>>  But maybe you guys should go off and decide what you want.
> What I want is for you to be less snarky in your communication, both
> on-list and in the Internet-Drafts you write. I would also want you to be
> clearer in your drafts when you are talking about IKEv1 or IKEv2: in this
> draft, even in the filename, you kind of hid that.

  Please rephrase your wants into specific comments on the draft that
I can then accept, counter, or reject. And please do not send them to
the IPsecME list because, as you said, this "is *not* an IPsecME WG
issue" (emphasis yours).

> Whether or not you want to do those, I want the ADs to decide whether it
> is appropriate to do more work on IKEv1, such as adding these curves to
> the IKEv1 registries. If they think the work is appropriate, they can also
> say where it should be done.

  They already did; you were there.