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@xxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf