[Last-Call] Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ikev2-17

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Valery:

I react to one response now.  I'll look at the rest later.

>> IKEv2 implementers that have no need for group security associations are not
>> likely to read this document.  For this reason, I think it is unwise to include the
>> updates to RFC 7296 here that:
>> 
>> (1) Rename transform type 5 from "Extended Sequence Numbers (ESN)" to
>>    "Anti-Replay Protection (ARP)"; and
>> 
>> (2) Rename IKEv2 authentication method 0 from "Reserved" to "NONE".
> 
> These actions don't change bits on the wire and the semantics of the currently defined values - 
> implementers who only read RFC 7296 and implement IKEv2 accordingly will get compliant implementations.

You are missing my point.  Some yet-to-be written RFC will use the new terminology.  That will confuse an implementer.  It is a very small part of this document, and I think it belongs in a more mainstream location for the IPsec implementer.

Russ

-- 
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux