Re: [psg.com #460] IESG - Transport - Oakley - new proposal (fwd)

[nisse%lysator.liu.se@localhost (Niels Möller)]

Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz%cmu.edu@localhost> writes:

> > PS. And also "RFC3526 group 14" doesn't make much sense to me; the
> > motivation for the "group14" naming we've been discussing have been to
> > make it *easily* generalizable to new groups that appear in some well
> > defined (by somebody else) series.
> 
> Yup.  The appropriate phrase would be IKE group 14, preferably with a
> reference to the aforementioned registry.

But then, do we mean ike-1 or ike-2? If these numbers are arbitrarily
selected by the ipsec wg, as my understanding is now, then that
matters, because there's no requirement that ike-1 and ike-2 use the
same numbers, right? (I'm not following ipsec closely, but my
impression is that ike-2 is not a small incremental change to ike-1,
but more or less a rewrite, trying to remedy the ike-1 disaster).

Regards,
/Niels