Hi, Just to make everyone aware, we have issued a new version that we hope addresses all concerns. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-08 Yours, Daniel
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:07 PM Daniel Migault <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Adam, > > Thanks for the feed back. All your comments have been fixed on the current > local version available at: > > https://github.com/mglt/draft-mglt-ipsecme-implicit-iv/blob/master/draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv.txt > > We expect to publish the version tomorrow. > > Yours, > Daniel > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:51 PM Adam Roach via Datatracker < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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..." >> >> Fixed > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> §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. >> >> Fixed > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > 7. Security Consideration >> >> Nit: "Considerations" >> > Fixed > >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> §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..." >> > Fixed > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IPsec mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec >> >
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
