Hi Daniel,
On 17/10/2019 15:05, Daniel Migault wrote:
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
Thank you for posting -08 and -09.
I just need one more change: IANA pointed out that you removed the name
of the registry from the IANA Considerations section. You should add it
back, as not having it in the document is confusing.
Thank you,
Alexey
Yours,
Daniel
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:07 PM Daniel Migault
<[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
_______________________________________________
secdir mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
