Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-08: No Objection
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 addressing my Discuss! A few new comments on the -08: Abstract If we're going to differentiate between nonce and IV, I think that the algorithms require a unique but not necessarily unpredictable *nonce*, rather than *IV*. Section 2 nit: s/Initialize/Initialization/ nit: s/similar mechanism/similar mechanisms/ plural Section 7 My previous ballot was trying to note that the sender/receiver counters MUST be reset (as noted here) even without this document, as part of the core ESP requirements. So we don't need to use the "MUST" here as if it's a new requirement; we can just say that this behavior is already present due to the preexisting requirements _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
