Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Is the second paragraph the current definition? The first paragraph makes us think the definition is current. However, the third paragraph (indicating it needs clarification) makes us think it is the old definition. Please consider adding text to indicate whether it is the old or new definition. Original: 3. Extending the Semantics of Transform Type 5 This document extends the semantics of transform type 5 in IKEv2 to the following definition. Transform type 5 defines the set of properties of sequence numbers of IPsec packets of a given SA when these packets enter the network. This definition requires some clarifications. Perhaps: 3. Extending the Semantics of Transform Type 5 This document extends the semantics of Transform Type 5 in IKEv2 to be defined as follows: Transform Type 5 defines the set of properties of sequence numbers of IPsec packets of a given SA when these packets enter the network. The updated definition is clarified as follows: --> 3) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence. Please provide an update if our suggested text is incorrect. Original: * By "sequence numbers" here we assume logical entities (like counters) that can be used for replay protection on receiving sides. In particular, these entities are not necessarily the content of the Sequence Number field in the IPsec packets, but may be constructed using some information, that is not necessaryly transmitted. Perhaps: * The use of "sequence numbers" implies that logical entities (like counters) can be used for replay protection on receiving sides. In particular, these entities are not necessarily the content of the Sequence Number field in the IPsec packets, as they may be constructed using some information that is not transmitted. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] We have updated this sentence as described below. Please let us know if any corrections are needed. Original: * The properties are interpreted as a characteristic of IPsec SA packets, and not as a result of a sender actions. Current: * The properties are interpreted as characteristics of IPsec SA packets rather than the results of sender actions. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] For readability, we have updated the sentence as shown below. Please let us know if any corrections are needed. In addition, please consider whether the abbreviated form of "SN" should be plural (i.e., Sequence Numbers (SNs) - we recognize that ESN was singular even though "Numbers" was plural). Original: Given this definition, transform type 5 in the IANA registries for IKEv2 [IKEV2-IANA] is renamed from "Extended Sequence Numbers (ESN)" to "Sequence Numbers (SN)" with the meaning, that it defines the properties the sequence numbers would have. Current: Given this updated definition, Transform Type 5 in the "Transform Type Values" registry [IKEV2-IANA] has been renamed from "Extended Sequence Numbers (ESN)" to "Sequence Numbers (SN)". --> 6) <!-- [rfced] "their monotonic increase" is not easily parsed. May we update as follows for readability? Note that this text appears in the definitions for values 0 and 1. Original: They can also be used with protocols that rely on sequence numbers uniqueness (like [RFC8750]) or their monotonic increase (like [RFC9347]). Perhaps: They can also be used with protocols that rely on sequence numbers uniqueness (e.g., [RFC8750]) or monotonically increasing sequence numbers (e.g., [RFC9347]). --> 7) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have updated the IANA Considerations to reduce redundancy throughout. Please review carefully and let us know if any updates are needed. You can review the changes by looking through a diff of the IANA Considerations section: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9827-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9827-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side view) --> 8) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used inconsistently. We updated to use the form on the left to align with RFC 7296. Please let us know any objections. Transform Type vs transform type Transform ID vs transform ID --> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> Thank you. RFC Editor On Jul 11, 2025, at 4:43 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/07/11 RFC Author(s): -------------- Instructions for Completing AUTH48 Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. Planning your review --------------------- Please review the following aspects of your document: * RFC Editor questions Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows: <!-- [rfced] ... --> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. * Changes submitted by coauthors Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. * Content Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) - contact information - references * Copyright notices and legends Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). * Semantic markup Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. * Formatted output Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. Submitting changes ------------------ To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: * your coauthors * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and its addition will be noted at the top of the message. You may submit your changes in one of two ways: An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of changes in this format Section # (or indicate Global) OLD: old text NEW: new text You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. Approving for publication -------------------------- To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. Files ----- The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9827.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9827.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9827.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9827.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9827-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9827-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9827-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9827 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC 9827 (draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-rename-esn-05) Title : Renaming Extended Sequence Number (ESN) Transform Type in the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) Author(s) : V. Smyslov WG Chair(s) : Yoav Nir, Tero Kivinen Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
