Paul Hoffman wrote: > >- One of the changes is listed in Section 1.7 twice. I'd suggest > >combining > > > > In section 1.3.2, changed "The KEi payload SHOULD be included" to > > be "The KEi payload MUST be included". This also led to changes in > > section 2.18. > > > >and > > > > Section 2.18 requires doing a Diffie-Hellman exchange when rekeying > > the IKE_SA. In theory, RFC 4306 allowed a policy where the Diffie- > > Hellman exchange was optional, but this was not useful (or > > appropriate) when rekeying the IKE_SA. > > > >as follows: > > > > This document requires doing a Diffie-Hellman exchange when > > rekeying the IKE_SA (and thus requires including the KEi/KEr > > payloads). In theory, RFC 4306 allowed a policy where the > > Diffie-Hellman exchange was optional (and KEi/KEr payloads could be > > omitted), this was not useful (or appropriate) when rekeying the > > IKE_SA. > > Disagree. Where possible, I tried to list the actual sections where > changes were made, and your proposed rewording loses the two places. > The current text is more explicit than the proposed change. Well, this depends on whether you think Section 1.7 should list textual changes in the document, or clarification/changes to the protocol. IMHO, it should be the latter, but I see that currently it's really listing the textual changes (even when they clearly don't have any impact on the protocol); so perhaps listing these separately is consistent with that... Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf