Hi Tero, > I think that the draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-downgrade-prevention should > actually Update the IKEv2 RFC 7296, as this extension is something > that would be needed for old implementations too, and IKEv2 > implementors should read and understand this document when > implementing or updating IKEv2.
I'm a bit ambivalent to this. Technically, this is not needed since the extension is negotiable. Thus, it does not break interoperability with any old implementation and IKEv2 can be implemented as per RFC 7296 without this extension. On the other hand, if we think that it addresses an important issue and want to draw attention of implementers to it, then yes, it can be marked as an update to RFC 7296 for broader adoption. Bottom line - I believe that it is not needed technically, but I don't mind. Regards, Valery. > What do other people in the WG thing? If others agree, then this > document needs to be updated to say it updates IKEv2 RFC 7296. > -- > [email protected] _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
