Hi Valery, We do not believe we have heard from you regarding the questions below. Please review and let us know how the items below may be resolved.
Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On Jul 11, 2025, at 4:46 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. > --> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Is the second paragraph the current definition? The first > paragraph makes us think the definition is current. However, the third > paragraph (indicating it needs clarification) makes us think it is the old > definition. Please consider adding text to indicate whether it is the old > or new definition. > > Original: > 3. Extending the Semantics of Transform Type 5 > > This document extends the semantics of transform type 5 in IKEv2 to > the following definition. > > Transform type 5 defines the set of properties of sequence numbers of > IPsec packets of a given SA when these packets enter the network. > > This definition requires some clarifications. > > Perhaps: > 3. Extending the Semantics of Transform Type 5 > > This document extends the semantics of Transform Type 5 in IKEv2 to > be defined as follows: > > Transform Type 5 defines the set of properties of sequence numbers > of IPsec packets of a given SA when these packets enter the network. > > The updated definition is clarified as follows: > --> > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence. Please > provide an update if our suggested text is incorrect. > > Original: > * By "sequence numbers" here we assume logical entities (like > counters) that can be used for replay protection on receiving > sides. In particular, these entities are not necessarily the > content of the Sequence Number field in the IPsec packets, but may > be constructed using some information, that is not necessaryly > transmitted. > > Perhaps: > * The use of "sequence numbers" implies that logical entities (like > counters) can be used for replay protection on receiving > sides. In particular, these entities are not necessarily the > content of the Sequence Number field in the IPsec packets, as they > may be constructed using some information that is not transmitted. > --> > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] We have updated this sentence as described below. Please > let us know if any corrections are needed. > > Original: > * The properties are interpreted as a characteristic of IPsec SA > packets, and not as a result of a sender actions. > > Current: > * The properties are interpreted as characteristics of IPsec SA > packets rather than the results of sender actions. > --> > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] For readability, we have updated the sentence as shown > below. Please let us know if any corrections are needed. In addition, > please consider whether the abbreviated form of "SN" should be plural > (i.e., Sequence Numbers (SNs) - we recognize that ESN was singular even > though "Numbers" was plural). > > Original: > Given this definition, transform type 5 in the IANA registries for > IKEv2 [IKEV2-IANA] is renamed from "Extended Sequence Numbers (ESN)" > to "Sequence Numbers (SN)" with the meaning, that it defines the > properties the sequence numbers would have. > > Current: > Given this updated definition, Transform Type 5 in the "Transform Type > Values" registry [IKEV2-IANA] has been renamed from "Extended Sequence > Numbers (ESN)" to "Sequence Numbers (SN)". > --> > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] "their monotonic increase" is not easily parsed. May we > update as follows for readability? > Note that this text appears in the definitions for values 0 and 1. > > Original: > They can also be used with protocols that rely > on sequence numbers uniqueness (like [RFC8750]) or their monotonic > increase (like [RFC9347]). > > Perhaps: > They can also be used with protocols that rely > on sequence numbers uniqueness (e.g., [RFC8750]) or monotonically > increasing sequence numbers (e.g., [RFC9347]). > --> > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have updated the IANA Considerations to reduce > redundancy throughout. Please review carefully and let us know if any > updates are needed. > > You can review the changes by looking through a diff of the IANA > Considerations section: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9827-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9827-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side view) > --> > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to > be used inconsistently. We updated to use the form on the left to align > with RFC 7296. Please let us know any objections. > > Transform Type vs transform type > Transform ID vs transform ID > --> > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > online Style Guide > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature > typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should > still be reviewed as a best practice. > --> > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor > > > On Jul 11, 2025, at 4:43 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2025/07/11 > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval. > > Planning your review > --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > include: > > * your coauthors > > * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > list: > > * More info: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > * The archive itself: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9827.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9827.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9827.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9827.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9827-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9827-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9827-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9827 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC 9827 (draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-rename-esn-05) > > Title : Renaming Extended Sequence Number (ESN) Transform Type in > the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) > Author(s) : V. Smyslov > WG Chair(s) : Yoav Nir, Tero Kivinen > > Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
