[IPsec] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis

Greetings. As discussed on the list for the past few weeks, and in the face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires (which, for many of us, seems to translate to "too much beef"), draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis is ready for WG Last Call. We would like everyone to review it carefully, given that there

Re: [IPsec] EdDSA Signatures in IKE

Yoav Nir writes: > > That same draft could also point references to the suitable cfrg > > document, and recommend not using the ph versions. > > Like this? > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nir-ipsecme-eddsa-00 Yep. One nit: OLD To signal within IKE that no hashing needs to be done. A

Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-07.txt

This version looks good to me! Seems ready for WGLC. —Tommy > On Apr 7, 2016, at 5:37 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Apr 2016, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> This draft is a

Re: [IPsec] EdDSA Signatures in IKE

I can change that. However, “Identity” is the term used in the CFRG draft. > On 8 Apr 2016, at 9:57 AM, Valery Smyslov wrote: > > I also think that "null" is less ambiguous here. > > Regards, > Valery. > > -Original Message- From: Yaron Sheffer > Sent: Friday, April

Re: [IPsec] EdDSA Signatures in IKE

"Identity" is the formally correct term, but I think "null" is much clearer than "identity". Especially in the context of certificates, where "identity" can be mistaken for something else. Thanks, Yaron On 04/08/2016 01:29 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: On 7 Apr 2016, at 6:12 PM, Tero Kivinen