Here are my comments from the shepherd review.
In section 2.1 there is [TBD] for the TS Type of the TS_SECLABEL. As
we have already done the early allocation for the label, it would be
better to just fill it in.
Same for section 5 in IANA Considerations section, and there you can
also add note to be removed before publication saying, that the value
has already been allocated from the registry, so IANA will know that
there is no new allocations to be done by this document.
(And updating those will clear several idnits issues, i.e. the one
with unknown reference [TBD] and the fact that document is quite old).
In section 3.1 the first traffic selector should include port number,
as this is supposed to be the packet causing the trigger. I.e., the
protocol, port and exact ip-addresses should be filled in. Also the
narrowing is done incorrectly, as the range that the responder
selected does not include the first traffic selector.
I.e. change to:
TSi = ((17,24233,198.51.12-198.51.12),
(17,0,192.0.2.0-192.0.2.255),
(0,0,198.51.0-198.51.255),
TS_SECLABEL1, TS_SECLABEL2)
TSr = ((17,53,203.0.113.1-203.0.113.1),
(17,0,203.0.113.0-203.0.113.255),
(0,0,203.0.113.0-203.0.113.255),
TS_SECLABEL1, TS_SECLABEL2)
and then the responder can select the response that is in the draft.
In section 6 we have Note to the RFC editor referencing the obsoleted
RFC6982 and not the RFC7942 which obsoleted that. Why is that. I think
it would be better to change the reference in the RFC editor note to
the RFC 7942, and remove RFC6982 reference.
--
kivi...@iki.fi
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
