Hi Valery, Thank you for your reply! Please see inline.
> On Oct 7, 2025, at 3:56 AM, Valery Smyslov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Madison, > > thank you for this update, please see inline. > >> Hi Valery and Brian, >> >> Thank you for your replies! We have posted updated files below. We believe >> that there is now only one outstanding >> item to address (see inline). >> >>>> I noticed that the following requesting change wasn't done: >>>> >>>>> 54) Section 4.4.1 >>>>> >>>>> CURRENT: >>>>> Group policies are comprised of two types: GSA policy and GW policy. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps it is not consistent, but I think that we should re-expand GW >>>>> here (and perhaps GSA too). >>>>> GW is defined in the very beginning and is not used up to this point, >>>>> thus I think it would >>>>> be helpful for readers to remind what it is. >>>>> >>>>> NEW: >>>>> Group policies are comprised of two types: group SA (GSA) policy and >>>>> group-wide (GW) policy. >>>> >>>> While I admit that the proposed text re-expanded the terms that have >>>> already been expanded, >>>> the rationale for it is that this expansion was ~30 pages before, and >>>> terms were not used since that, >>>> so re-expansion may help readers to refresh their memory. I don't insist, >>>> but I think this is helpful. >>>> Brian, Deb, your opinion? >>> >>> I see no issue with re-expanding the terms, but if Madison thinks it isn’t >>> needed then let’s leave it be. >> >> 1) Thank you for pointing this out! This was actually meant to be included >> in the followup questions sent on 10/2, >> but must have gotten lost due to the number of changes in the original >> thread. Apologies for missing this! >> >> While making updates to this document, we noticed that there seems to be two >> different expansions for GSA >> (Group Security Association and group SA). Is this intentional, or may we >> make this consistent by replacing >> instances of "group SA" with the abbreviation "GSA"? If yes, may we also >> make the following adjustment to the >> "NEW" text as shown below? > > This is a very good point and indeed a point for some confusion. It is not > intentional, the reason is the lack of words > in authors' vocabulary (mostly me to blame) :-) > > We have the following meanings: > > - GSA (Group Security Association) - a collection of individual Security > Associations (both Data-Security SAs and Rekey SAs) > as defined in Section 1.2 (we also have GSA (Group Security Association) > payload - this is just a name of a payload). > > - as for "group SA", - in the document this is used to refer to an individual > Security Association within GSA (an SA that belongs to a group). > Perhaps this is a bad choice of words, but that is that. Unfortunately, the > abbreviation is the same - GSA... > > I believe Brian is more experienced in the roots of these terms and can > comment on this. > > > Thus, we have: > - GSA - Group Security Association > - GSA policy - group Security Association policy. > > This is indeed confusing. > > Perhaps we can replace "GSA policy" with "group SA policy" for clarity (14 > instances)? Brian, Deb, your opinion? > But there are still "GSA transforms" (meaning group SA transforms) and "GSA > Attributes" (group SA attributes)... > Any ideas? Thank you for the helpful explanation! We will wait for Brian’s response/comments before making any updates to the expansion of GSA. Thank you! Madison Church RFC Production Center >> Perhaps: >> Group policies are comprised of two types: Group Security Association (GSA) >> policy and group-wide (GW) policy. > > Based on the distinction described above I think that the correct expanding > here should be: > > NEW: > Group policies are comprised of two types: group SA (GSA) policy and > group-wide (GW) policy. > > Rationale - the GSA policy here describes a single SA within a GSA. > > > Regards, > Valery. > > >> Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not >> make changes once it has been >> published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your >> approval of the document in its current >> form. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in >> the publication process. > > > >> Updated files have been posted below (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838.xml >> >> Updated diff files: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by >> side) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838-lastdiff.html (most recent >> updates only) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> For the AUTH48 status page, please see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9838. >> >> Thank you! >> >> Madison Church >> RFC Production Center > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
