Subject: [anonsec] 2401bis vs 2401

From: hartmans-ietf at mit.edu (Sam Hartman)
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:50:51 -0500

>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU> writes:

    Joe> If 2401bis is strictly required (vs. 2401), it might be
    Joe> useful to adjust the title (not sure, though). I'd prefer if
    Joe> there were a way to refer to 2401 processing, even if in an
    Joe> appendix, though I don't know if that's feasible.

Hi.  I've been working with Nico on trying to understand the
implications of his draft for 2401bis.  I've also been following the
Kink working group's efforts to work with both 2401bis and 2401.

My reasonably strong belief is that we have to do more than twice the
work if we want to support both 2401bis and 2401.  we need to do the
analysis separately for each model (they are that different) and we
then need to make sure the results are consistent.

We must support 2401bis.  I argue that we should not spend effort on
2401.

I understand David's concerns WRT iscsi and IKE V1.  I don't think
only thinking about the 2401bis architecture precludes IKE V1 from
being considered.

--Sam

---

From: Nicolas.Williams at sun.com (Nicolas Williams)
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 14:59:47 -0600

> Kink working group's efforts to work with both 2401bis and 2401.

BTW, I'll write up our discussion and send notes to the list tomorrow.

Nico
--

---

From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:00:02 -0800

> We must support 2401bis.  I argue that we should not spend effort on

BTNS affects the SPD in 2401/2401bis in similar ways (and not much
else); it's not clear that there will be double the effort required to
address both (as is the case with KINK). It'd be useful to understand
that before abandoning 2401.

> only thinking about the 2401bis architecture precludes IKE V1 from

It seems like 2401bis refers only to IKEv2 (end sec 3.2 of 2401bis).

Joe