Hi Paul, a new -02 version of the draft is published. We believe it addressed your comments, except for one, see below.
> I have reviewed the changed between draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis and > RFC 8229. I agree with most of these changes. I have some comments > below. If others want to compare the draft with the RFC, see: > > https://nohats.ca/draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-01-from-rfc8229.diff.html > > > > > that may block IKE negotiation over UDP. > > I would say: > > that may not transport IKE negotiation over UDP. > > Blocking sounds like an active administrative action. Most networks just > accidentally happen to not pass UDP. > > I might also change "for traversing network middleboxes" to be more neutral, > eg "in case routers or network middleboxes do not handle UDP". After some discussion between the authors we decided to keep the original text, because it was in the RFC8229 and caused no problems. Regards, Tommy & Valery. [sniped] _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
