Re: KINK should referenece to IKEv2?

From: Kazunori Miyazawa <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: KINK should referenece to IKEv2?
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:17:27 +0900

> 
> 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.
> > 
> 
> I agree with Sakane-san.
> 
> I think if kink is based on 2401bis, it would use IKEv2 instead of ISAKMP.
> If it uses IKEv2, I guess there are conflicts which are rekeying and dead peer
> handling because IKEv1 does not mention those process and KINK specifies it by
> it self. Changing for IKEv2 and resolving new issues need a long time.
> I think we should go with 2401.

I also agree with Sakane-san.

And I have an observation.

    Our discussions will be more productive
    if we can categorize issues.

    Some issues were based on Kerberos clarification
    and/or kcrypt, some were on 2401bis,
    some were on IKEv2 and so on.

    We can go forward with Kerberos related issues
    even if we can not solve 2401bis and/or IKEv2 related issues
    which may need long time to be solved.

----- nobuo