[I am now doing these editorial changes, and I will be sending
separate emails for each of them, just so I can keep track of what is
changed and where, and you can complain if I miss or misinterpret
something (but do not complain about missing changes before I send
email that I have processed all of the changes).]
Yaron Sheffer writes:
> 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."
Changed
IKEv2 was a change to the IKE protocol that was not backward
compatible. In contrast, the current document not only
provides a clarification of IKEv2, but makes minimum changes
to the IKE protocol. A list of the significant differences
between RFC 4306 and RFC 5996 is given in <xref
target='sect-1.7'/> and differences between RFC 5996 and this
document is given in <xref target='sect-1.8' />.</t>
to:
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.
A list of the significant differences between RFC 4306 and RFC
5996 is given in <xref target='sect-1.7'/> and differences
between RFC 5996 and this document is given in <xref
target='sect-1.8' />.</t>
--
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
