Hi Sandy, sorry for radio silence. I did receive the AUTH48 message, but it came in bad time :-) I was busy with preparations to IETF 123, then was on the way to Madrid and thus had no time to review. I'm afraid I won't be able to do this during IETF week as well, sorry. Apologize for the delay, I plan to review the AUTH48 changes after IETF 123 ends.
Regards, Valery. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Sent: 17 июля 2025 г. 1:09 > To: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > Cc: s...@elvis.ru; ipsecme-...@ietf.org; ipsecme-cha...@ietf.org; > kivi...@iki.fi; debcool...@gmail.com; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > Subject: [***SPAM***] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9827 <draft-ietf-ipsecme- > ikev2-rename-esn-05> for your review > > 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-4Q9l2USxI > > Ae6P8O4Zc > > > > * 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
