Paul Hoffman wrote: > > > > - Section 5.7.4: "It also includes 3 EC DH groups (groups 19-21) > >> > that were previously defined in [RFC4753]". The normative > >> > specification for groups 19-21 in IKE is still 4753/5753bis, so I > >> > would propose just omitting this sentence. > >> > >> OK - but won't people be confused if they look at RFC 5114 and see > >> that there are additional groups defined there? > > > >The situation of RFC 5114 is quite confusing, I agree (because it's > >IMHO not totally clear whether the errata for RFC 4753 would apply to > >RFC 5114 too). > > > >Perhaps "It also includes 3 EC DH groups (groups 19-21) for > >information; however, the normative specification for these groups > >is [4753bis]."? > > It is inappropriate for this document to say what the normative > specification for another document is, particularly one that is as > confusing as RFC 5114.
Assuming 4753bis gets approved by IESG before the roadmap (which seems very likely), I think we can say this. Or perhaps we could say "current" instead "normative"? "RFC 5114 also included 3 EC DH groups (groups 19-21) that were originally defined in [RFC4753]; however, the current specification for these groups is [4753bis]". Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
