Re: KINK should referenece to IKEv2?

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

    Kazunori> Shoichi Sakane wrote:
    >> In my opinion from reading the minutes at the IETF50
    >> minneapolis, there is no strict reason to change the referenece
    >> from IKEv1 to IKEv2 because the ISAKMP payload in the KINK is
    >> just used to carry a set of IPsec parameters, and Notification
    >> Payloads.
    >> 

    Kazunori> We should have a consensus whether we will discuss KINK
    Kazunori> based on rfc2401bis or rfc2401.


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.

This decision is based on the following assumptions; if these
assumptions are false the decision should be revisited.  Making Kink
based on 2401bis will not require significant change.  Making Kink
based on 2401bis will not create significant confusion for 2401
implementers.  Making kink based on 2401bis will not require
significant work for people who have mostly complete kink
implementations.

Note that I have not made the claim that kink should be based on ikev2
instead of ikev1.  I've made a related claim: the WG must come to
consensus on whether kink implements features like multiple SAs
between the same nodes that are supported by 2401bis but not 2401.  If
the working group decides not to support all the things that 2401bis
requires from ikev2, then the wg needs to explain why it made that
decision.

--Sam