Re: [IPsec] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)
Hi Éric, To improve the IANA section a bit we followed the guidelines in RFC8126 more religiously and I am attaching the diff here. Let me know if there are more changes you would like to suggest for the IANA section. Rgs, Panos -Original Message- From: IPsec On Behalf Of Éric Vyncke via Datatracker Sent: Friday, January 03, 2020 4:14 AM To: The IESG Cc: ipsec@ietf.org; ipsecme-cha...@ietf.org; david.walterm...@nist.gov; draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ik...@ietf.org Subject: [IPsec] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT) Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: 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-qr-ikev2/ -- COMMENT: -- Thank you for the work put into this document. I found it very interesting to read BTW. I have only one minor non-blocking comment: please read RFC 8126 to have a correct IANA section about "type 16435" (and others). Same applies for section 5.1. I hope that this helps to improve this document or any future one of yours, Regards, -éric ___ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec <<< text/html; name="Diff_ draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10.xml - draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-11.xml.html": Unrecognized >>> smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
[IPsec] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke via Datatracker writes: > -- > COMMENT: > -- > > Thank you for the work put into this document. I found it very > interesting to read BTW. I have only one minor non-blocking comment: > please read RFC 8126 to have a correct IANA section about "type > 16435" (and others). Same applies for section 5.1. As an IANA expert for those registries, I have no idea why you think the IANA Section for them are not correct. What do you think is wrong with them? The 16435 number has already been allocated from the Status notification registry by IANA, and as far I as understand the IANA section for creating the "IKEv2 Post-quantum Preshared Key ID Types" contains everything that is needed. -- kivi...@iki.fi ___ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
[IPsec] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: 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-qr-ikev2/ -- COMMENT: -- Thank you for the work put into this document. I found it very interesting to read BTW. I have only one minor non-blocking comment: please read RFC 8126 to have a correct IANA section about "type 16435" (and others). Same applies for section 5.1. I hope that this helps to improve this document or any future one of yours, Regards, -éric ___ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
