At 1:38 PM +0100 3/16/10, <pasi.ero...@nokia.com> wrote: >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]".
That works for me. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
