OK thanks. Those changes would make the document clearer for me, at least. Regards,
—John > On Mar 3, 2022, at 2:16 AM, Valery Smyslov <s...@elvis.ru> wrote: > > > Hi John, > >> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate-09: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XGQjnyKG320X2cLxK9O8lUUdHDPAUAqktikCKjmq47JKLaRtoV4JBm_gnZUvhQ$ >> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XGQjnyKG320X2cLxK9O8lUUdHDPAUAqktikCKjmq47JKLaRtoV4JBm-OaYI_mg$ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Thanks for this. I have just a couple minor questions/suggestions. >> >> 1. Section 3.2, “these exchanges MUST follow each other”. I suppose what is >> meant is, “these exchanges MUST be sequential” (this hardly seems to need to >> be >> mandated, but OK). Or is something else intended, in which case, what is it? > > No, you got the point. If you think “these exchanges MUST be sequential” > is more natural English wording, I'll use it. As a non-native speaker > I probably don't feel the difference... > >> 2. In Section 3.4, there is: >> >> not all error notifications may ever appear in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE >> exchange (for example, errors concerning authentication are generally >> only applicable to the IKE_AUTH exchange). >> >> I can’t make sense of what the word “ever” is doing there. It makes sense to >> me >> if I remove “ever” to make it “not all error notifications may appear”. It’s >> OK >> if I change “ever” to “even”. But I don’t get it, as written. Am I missing >> something, or would one of my edits be appropriate? > > This is again an artefact of me being a non-native speaker. > By using this word I intended to stress that some error notifications > may _never_ appear in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE, but it's OK for me to drop this > word. > > Thank you! > > Regards, > Valery. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
