Hi Sandy, please find my answers inline.
With regard to the publication process. I understand, that this draft and draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ikev2-22 are parts of the C532 cluster, but since there is no normative reference of draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ikev2-22 from this draft, then this draft can be published before draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ikev2-22. On the other hand, there is an informative reference from this draft to draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ikev2-22 and I believe that for readers it is better if the target of this reference is RFC rather than I-D. And since draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ikev2-22 is about to enter active editing state and hopefully be ready to be published soon, I think that it makes sense to delay publication of this draft so that both drafts are published at the same time, and each of them reference the other as an RFC (and not as an I-D). > Hi Valery, > > We understand about the timing — thank you for letting us know. > > Hope your travels were smooth! Perhaps we’ll see you next week. > > RFC Editor/sg > > > On Jul 17, 2025, at 1:23 AM, Valery Smyslov <s...@elvis.ru> wrote: > > > > Hi Sandy, > > > > sorry for radio silence. I did receive the AUTH48 message, but it came in > > bad > time :-) > > I was busy with preparations to IETF 123, then was on the way to Madrid > > and thus had no time to review. I'm afraid I won't be able to do this > > during IETF > week as well, sorry. > > Apologize for the delay, I plan to review the AUTH48 changes after IETF 123 > ends. > > > > Regards, > > Valery. > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > >> Sent: 17 июля 2025 г. 1:09 > >> To: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > >> Cc: s...@elvis.ru; ipsecme-...@ietf.org; ipsecme-cha...@ietf.org; > >> kivi...@iki.fi; debcool...@gmail.com; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > >> Subject: [***SPAM***] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9827 <draft-ietf-ipsecme- > >> ikev2-rename-esn-05> for your review > >> > >> Hi Valery, > >> > >> We do not believe we have heard from you regarding the questions below. > >> Please review and let us know how the items below may be resolved. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> RFC Editor/sg > >> > >>> On Jul 11, 2025, at 4:46 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > >>> > >>> 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. > >>> --> replay protection anti-replay IPsec ESP AH > >>> 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: > >>> --> The second paragraph is the current (new) definition. Thus, the proposed text is clearer and I'm fine with it. > >>> 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. > >>> --> I would propose the following text: NEW: * "Sequence numbers" in this definition are not necessary the content of the Sequence Number field in the IPsec packets, but may also be some logical entities (e.g., counters) that might be constructed taking in account some information that is not transmitted on the wire. Feel free to propose better text if this is still not clear or grammatically incorrect. The point is that while we have "Sequence Number" field in the IPsec packets, the "sequence numbers" we are talking about are not necessary the content of this field, but may be constructed using additional sources. > >>> 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. > >>> --> This change is OK. > >>> 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)". > >>> --> I still believe that the clarification is helpful. In other words, the name of this Transform Type is too short to be absolutely clear. Before IETF LC the proposed new name for this transform type was "Sequence Numbers Properties (SNP)", which would be clearer, but apparently was grammatically incorrect. Another proposed name was "Properties of Sequence Numbers (PSN)", but eventually it was decided to use simple "Sequence Numbers (SN)" with a clarification what this name means. I also don't think that abbreviation in plural form (SNs) is justified, since this would break the rule that all abbreviation is always in all-capital letters. Thus, my preference is: NEW: 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)" with the implied meaning, that it defines the properties of the sequence numbers in a broad sense. Is it better with regard to readability? > >>> 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]). > >>> --> This change is good. > >>> 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) > >>> --> These changes are generally OK. I noticed that the text of the notes in this section to be added to IANA registries now mismatches the notes that are actually added as a result of IANA actions made when this I-D was sent to the RFC Editor (with regard of the articles). I think that this can be sorted out with IANA. > >>> 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 > >>> --> I'm OK with this change, thank you. > >>> 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. > >>> --> I re-read the draft and I believe that it satisfies the "Inclusive Language" requirements. One more points I found. 10) [EESP] should reference draft-ietf-ipsecme-eesp instead of draft-klassert-ipsecme-eesp (it was adopted as WG document a while ago). Regards, Valery. > >>> 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-4Q9l2USxI > >>> Ae6P8O4Zc > >>> > >>> * 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
