> > I don't think the proposed change is justified. The requirement language
> > (MAY, SHOULD, MUST etc.) it IETF
> documents is usually used in
> > protocol descriptions when some actions are required (or prohibited) to
> > achieve interoperability. Section
> "Upgrade procedure" is not
> >
Hi Jonathan,
thank you for your review. Please see my comments inline.
> The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security has reviewed
> draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-04 and recommends the
> authors address the following comments before proceeding to IESG.
>
> 1. The table on Page 8 refers to the term
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security has reviewed
draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-04 and recommends the authors address the following
comments before proceeding to IESG.
1. The table on Page 8 refers to the term 'HAVE PPK' - this term is not used
elsewhere in the
> > This message starts a working group last call (WGLC) on
> > draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-04, which will conclude
> on December 14, 2018 at UTC 23:59. Please review and provide feedback on the
> -04 version
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2/). Please
> indicate
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Waltermire, David A. (Fed) wrote:
This message starts a working group last call (WGLC) on
draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-04, which will conclude on December 14, 2018 at UTC
23:59. Please review and provide feedback on the -04 version
