[Last-Call] Re: [IPsec] 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 do not think that RFC 9370 changes are the same as the ones we are discussing here.

The point has been raised to the Area Directors at this point.  I will accept whatever they consider best.

Russ


> On Nov 29, 2024, at 2:08 PM, Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi Russ,
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I believe I see your point. 
> 
> We have already passed this way with RFC 9370, which renamed some IKEv2 registries.
> One may argue that RFC 9370 is more kind of mainstream document, than this draft,
> but it is still not for every implementer (some may ignore PQ stuff). 
> 
> Thus, I don't believe this is a real problem, especially if IANA registry page will 
> contain notes describing the fact of renaming, the old names and the document
> that caused it (as it was done with RFC 9370).
> 
> If you think that I'm still missing your point, then may I ask you to exemplify
> the prospected scenario when a careful implementer would be confused.
> 
> Regards,
> Valery.
> 
>> Russ
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@xxxxxxxx
>> To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-leave@xxxxxxxx
> 

-- 
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