Re: KINK should referenece to IKEv2?

>>>>> "Kazunori" == Kazunori Miyazawa <[email protected]> writes:

    Kazunori> Shoichi Sakane wrote:
    >>> Speaking as an AD, if 2401bis is approved by IETF 62, Kink
    >>> will be based on 2401bis.  If not, then it depends on where
    >>> 2401bis is, where Kink is, and how fast things are moving.
    >> I dont understand why KINK will be based on 2401bis when
    >> 2401bis is approved by IETF62.  There are lots of platforms
    >> based on 2401.  KINK should be based on 2401 in order to deploy
    >> it.  If the market will not choice 2401bis and if a kink
    >> implementation based on 2401bis does not work on a platform
    >> based on 2401, then KINK will not deploy.  it is not easy to
    >> know how difference between 2401bis and 2401, and it is not
    >> easy to know if a key management daemon based on 2401bis will
    >> work on a platform based on 2401.  so I said in previous mail
    >> that we should make kink based on 2401 then make kink based on
    >> 2401bis.  kink header has a version field.
    >> 

    Kazunori> I agree with Sakane-san.

    Kazunori> I think if kink is based on 2401bis, it would use IKEv2
    Kazunori> instead of ISAKMP.  

That would be a valid way of making Kink based on 2401bis.  It seems
like a lot of work and I am not sure it is in the best interest of the
working group to choose to make Kink work with 2401bis that way.

Again, I did present the assumptions under which I decided to require
2401bis.  You would need to show me that one of those assumptions is
wrong in order to convince me to change my mind.

--Sam