Well, that was a rookie move. Deb
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Deb Cooley <debcool...@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 1:36 PM Subject: draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ikev2 To: <draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ikev2.auth...@ietf.org>, <ipse...@ietf.org> Cc: <ipsecme-cha...@ietf.org> Hi, Before I put this draft into IETF Last Call, I have a few easy comments: Section 1.2, 4.4.1, Group-Wise: Group-wise or Group-wide? typo? And if it isn't a typo, I'd like to know why you chose Group-Wise as the name. Section 3.1, para 3: 'size of the key', while it is likely true in this case, isn't always true. In the case where these are all symmetric keys used in strong algorithms, then size is roughly comparable to strength. Section 4.4.2: Is there a circumstance where distributing both ESP and AH policies for the same set of Traffic Selectors would be sensible? If not, should this be MUST NOT? Section 9.2: It is hard to tell where exactly registry entries are being requested. Some say <TBA> and some actually specify values (example IKEv2 Payload Types). Please make it obvious where those entry values are aspirational. (IANA will do the real review here, we have just been warned that putting real numbers in these registries isn't always a good idea, i.e. they might be changed) Section 11: While it is appropriate to list contributors, it might not be appropriate to list full addresses and phone numbers. If the authors really want this, then the contributors need to agree to this level of exposure. My suggestion would be to list names, companies, and email addresses. Even in this case, the contributor should acknowledge their consent. Author's Addresses: The comment above is applicable here too. I'm assuming that you have both put what you are comfortable using. If that is not the case, feel free to amend it. Deb Cooley Sec AD
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
