Subject: Re: [IPsec] Diffie-Hellman group transform IDs IANA registry (was #123: ...)

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 12:03:58 +0200

Dan Harkins writes:
>   Groups 1 and 2 were defined in RFC 2409 and repeating them in a
> subsequent RFC does not change that.

RFC2409 has been obsoleted, so I do not want to refer to that, as
people will then go to the RFC2409 and notice that it has been
obsoleted by RFC4306, and will go to there and find the groups from
RFC4306 appendix B.1 and B.2.

The groups are same, so it does not really matter which document is
referenced.

> I suggest leaving the reference to RFC 2409 for groups 1 and 2 (and
> 3 and 4 for that matter) that currently exists today at
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipsec-registry, as of 2315 GMT on 30
> November 2009, aka "right now".

I am NOT going to touch ipsec-registry. That is IKEv1 stuff that is
already obsoleted, and there is no point of doing anything for that
(and no need, as it does nto have range allocations).

I am talking about IKEv2 registry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters) and there the
references were already for RFC4306, not to RFC2409 (and it does not
have groups 3 and 4 at all, those are not defined for IKEv2).
-- 
[email-masked]

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:55:41 -0800

>RFC4306 appendix B.1 and B.2.

Fully agree. It does not matter where something was defined first.

>have groups 3 and 4 at all, those are not defined for IKEv2).

There may be a good reason for someone to touch the IKEv1 registry, but that should be done as a separate work item.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:50:38 +0100

Paul Hoffman wrote:

> - Add [IKEV2IANA] to the Normative References; it will point to the
> URL of the IANA registry.

I don't like the idea of splitting the normative content of RFC 4306
to two different places. 

An informative reference would be very useful (and probably some of
the tables may contain stuff that could be just removed).

But if I'm writing code to send an IDi payload of type ID_FQDN, the
numbers for "IDi" and "ID_FQDN" should be in this RFC (either 
somewhere near the text that describes IDi and ID_FQDN, or in 
a table -- that doesn't matter very much).

Best regards,
Pasi