Hi Yaron,
Hi Valery,
Sorry for being the Bad Guy on this. Your #6 does not seem editorial to
I think that current text is not aligned with RFC4301.
We may leave it as is or try to find other form that
would not appear so misaligned.
Your new text is fine, if we leave it at that. If we try to add text to
deal with the exceptional cases (same SPI shared between protocols),
this will quickly become normative. I don't want to do it in "bis" and
frankly, I think this situation is too rare to matter.
me. Similarly, #8 (adding new RFC 2119 language) is not editorial. I
would suggest to implement #6 only if it is critical to
interoperability or security, and to forgo #8.
What about #8 - it's just a question from me. From my feeling it must
be uppercase, but I might be wrong. We may leave it as is.
IETF process is very serious about the difference between lowercase and
uppercase (see RFC 6919). Maybe it should have been a SHOULD to start
with. But we SHOULD NOT change it for a "bis" document.
By the way, your correction #2 still does not do it IMHO. The sentence
refers to RFC 5996. So:
"IKEv2 as stated in RFC 4306 was a change to the IKE protocol that was
not backward compatible. RFC 5996 revised RFC 4306 to provide a
clarification of IKEv2, making minimum changes to the IKEv2 protocol.
The current document slightly revises RFC 5996 to make it suitable for
progression to Internet Standard."
Yes, your text is for RFC5996bis, while I made my notes a while ago
and the text was for RFC5996. Of course your variant is better.
Valery.
Thanks,
Yaron
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
