> > Brainpool groups do not have number in the IANA registry, which makes
> > them private for IKEv1 use. There is nothing there claiming that you
> > can only use new group mode to negotiate groups that are not know for
> > anybody else.
> "Brainpool groups do not have a number in the IANA registry". What do you
> think the topic of this thread is? Look at the subject above.
> You are arguing against doing something because it hasn't been done yet
> and that is illogical.
No, I am arguing against it as Brainpool groups CAN ALREADY BE USED in
IKEv1 without any changes to the specifications, or to the
IKEv1 does not require every single group to be coded in to every
> You know what? IKEv2 doesn't have any brainpool groups defined in its
> IANA registry. Are you against such a code point allocation? If not, then
> can I please ask you to be consistent in your positions?
IKEv2 cannot use groups which do not have number allocated. There is
no way to use brainpool groups in IKEv2 now. Thats why I do think
adding them to the IKEv2 IANA registry is something that should be
IKEv1 and IKEv2 situation is completely different because of that, i.e
existing IKEv1 implementation can already use brainpool groups, IKEv2
> Furthermore, not all implementations support domain parameter sets
> being passed in SA payloads (do any?) or New Group Mode so what you
> are advocating for causes more of the problems you are trying to use to
> justify your advocacy.