Black, David writes: > In looking for something else, I ran across a minor thinko in the > rfc5996bis draft that was inherited from RFC 5996. > > Section 3.14, Encrypted Payload, 4th paragraph: > > When an authenticated encryption algorithm is used to protect the IKE > SA, the construction of the Encrypted payload is different than what > is described here. See [AEAD] for more information on authenticated > encryption algorithms and their use in ESP. > > [AEAD] is a reference to RFC 5282, "Using Authenticated Encryption > Algorithms with the Encrypted Payload of the Internet Key Exchange > version 2 (IKEv2) Protocol." > > Hence, a change is in order at the end of the paragraph: > > "ESP" -> "IKEv2" > > In the unlikely event that the IESG finds nothing else to change in > the draft :-), an RFC Editor Note ought to suffice to handle this.
Thanks. I made the change in the current xml file, i.e. so next time I make new version this change will be there. > Should I also file an erratum against RFC 5996? I do not think we want to do that, as then I would have to publish new version immediately, as the draft-kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-rfc5996bis says it has fixes for all errata... -- [email protected] _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
