The following errata report has been held for document update for RFC7296, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)".
-------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5247 -------------------------------------- Status: Held for Document Update Type: Editorial Reported by: Andrew Cagney <andrew.cag...@gmail.com> Date Reported: 2018-01-30 Held by: Paul Wouters (IESG) Section: 3.10. Original Text ------------- o Protocol ID (1 octet) - If this notification concerns an existing SA whose SPI is given in the SPI field, this field indicates the type of that SA. For notifications concerning Child SAs, this field MUST contain either (2) to indicate AH or (3) to indicate ESP. Of the notifications defined in this document, the SPI is included only with INVALID_SELECTORS, REKEY_SA, and CHILD_SA_NOT_FOUND. If the SPI field is empty, this field MUST be sent as zero and MUST be ignored on receipt. Corrected Text -------------- o Protocol ID (1 octet) - If this notification concerns an existing SA whose SPI is given in the SPI field, this field indicates the type of that SA. For notifications concerning Child SAs, this field MUST contain either (2) to indicate AH or (3) to indicate ESP. Of the notifications defined in this document, the SPI is included only with INVALID_SELECTORS, REKEY_SA, and CHILD_SA_NOT_FOUND. If the SPI field is empty, this field MUST be sent as zero to indicate NONE and MUST be ignored on receipt. Notes ----- If I assume that the 'Protocol ID' field in the notification payload is specified by: Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2) Parameters IKEv2 Security Protocol Identifiers then a notification is using the 'Reserved' value 0. Since the value is being used, I think it would be better to give it a name. Other uses of 'Protocol ID' don't need updating as they all explicitly list allowed values, and in no case is 0 allowed. Paul Wouters: This is about name for Protocol ID 0 to be seen as "NONE", versus giving it a better name. While I agree with the poster the writing could be improved, this change is not required for implementing the RFC. Thus moved to Held for Document Update where this text can then be improved upon. -------------------------------------- RFC7296 (draft-kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-rfc5996bis-04) -------------------------------------- Title : Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) Publication Date : October 2014 Author(s) : C. Kaufman, P. Hoffman, Y. Nir, P. Eronen, T. Kivinen Category : INTERNET STANDARD Source : IP Security Maintenance and Extensions Area : Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
