Hi, Yaron Suppose that instead of sending the message to the list yesterday, Valery had submitted his comments as errata a few months ago, before Sean asked us to do the revision. Would those errata not have been verified?
If so (and I think it's true for at least #3, #4, #7, and #11, and #6 would also merit some new text), the corrections would now be in the draft. So why not now? Yoav On Oct 19, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Yaron Sheffer <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
