Subject: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-11.txt

From: "Dave Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 15:04:54 -0800

The draft in the RFC-editors queue now references obsoleted (as of last
month) RFCs. Specifically:
  RFC2401 is now obsoleted by RFC4301
  RFC2402 is now obsoleted by RFC4302
  RFC2404 is now obsoleted by RFC4305
  RFC2406 is now obsoleted by RFC4303, RFC4305
  RFC2407,2408,2409 are now obsoleted by RFC4306

Also two statements in section 8 are now obsolete as a result:
  "RFC-2401 is being updated by the IPsec Working Group."
  "RFC-2406 and RFC 2402 are being updated by the IPsec Working Group."

Can these be updated?

-Dave

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 10:24:08 +0200

They should be updated. By the way I noticed recently
that the RFC Editor does not necessarily do "obsoleted by"
updates to references automatically. This stuff needs to
be done by the authors in AUTH48. And in this particular
case we have even text changes, as you point out.

By the way, there are also substantive changes in the
new IPsec documents. For instance, AH support is no
longer a MUST. I think this should be reflected in the
node requirements document too, as that currently
says "AH [RFC-2402] MUST be supported.".

There's probably an impact in the algorithms and key
management sections, too...

--Jari

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 12:29:15 +0200 (EET)

> management sections, too...

Do we need or want to change these at this point?

Obsoleting is just, well.. obsoleting.  The implementations conforming 
to the old specs aren't going away any time soon.

I guess the proper resolution depends on whether we want the document 
focus on:

  1) what we think the node requirements are now (or were a year ago)

  2) what we think the node requirements should be in a couple of years
     (as nobody is fulfilling them at present)

  3) what we think the node requirements would be in an "ideal world"
     (where only specifications exist, not implementations)

FWIW, I have a document in a slightly similar situation (but still 
different as it's not a requirements doc) but not so far in the 
process (draft-ietf-v6ops-ipsec-tunnels-01.txt).  It covers both IKEv1 
and IKEv2, and both old and new IPsec architectures.  Even though the 
old ones are now obsolete, I'm not going to remove the support and 
text on the obsolete ones.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:20:20 +0100

IMHO, the reference updates should be done during AUTH48 without
further discussion, but making AH optional seems like a substantive
change.

Personally, I would support that change, i.e. s/MUST/MAY/.

     Brian (speaking only for myself)