Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-07: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the work on this mechanism. I have no substantive comments beyond those that have already been shared, although I do have some minor editorial comments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §2: > In some context, such as IoT, it may be preferable to avoid carrying Nit: "...some contexts..." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §5: > An initiator supporting this feature SHOULD propose implicit IV > algorithms in the Transform Type 1 (Encryption Algorithm) > Substructure of the Proposal Substructure inside the SA Payload. Please expand "SA" on first use. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 7. Security Consideration Nit: "Considerations" --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §7: > extensions ([RFC6311], [RFC7383]) do allow it to repeat, so there is > no an easy way to derive unique IV from IKEv2 header fields. Nit: "...not an easy way..." _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
