Yaron Sheffer writes:
Back to the matter at hand: I am opposed to
draft-kivinen-ipsecme-secure-password-framework. It has served its
purpose when two of the proposals were changed to add method
negotiation, and thus enable IKE peers to implement none, one or more of
these methods.
Actually there is currently only one draft, draft-shin-augmented-pake,
which follows my negotiation process. The
draft-harkins-ipsecme-spsk-auth author did say he is going to change
his draft, but the draft is not yet there, and then there is
draft-kuegler-ipsecme-pace-ikev2 (which you are co-author) which is
doing negotiation differently and I do not know whether that is going
to change to use same way than others.
I believe the other justifications for this draft, including the
preservation of IANA IKEv2 namespaces, are bogus.
As an IANA Expert for the registries in question I strongly disagree.
If you want to delay this fight to the IANA allocation time, that is
fine by me, but I will point it out already now that I will be against
allocating separate code points for each protocol as there is no need
for that.
Adopting the rest of the framework would be a useless exercise.
Keeping the IANA registries clean is important for me, in addition to
make it easy to implement multiple methods in the same implementation.
I do not consider them as useless resons. Especially as it only causes
very small changes to the actual protocol drafts (I would expect less
than an one hour of work).
--
kivinen(_at_)iki(_dot_)fi
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf