Thanks Alexey, I just posted a new version with the following text:
""" The IANA has assigned the following code points to the registry Transform Type 1 - Encryption Algorithm Transform IDs [IANA]: """ Yours, Daniel On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 7:49 AM Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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 >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > secdir mailing [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 >
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
