I've read the draft and support its adoption.
A few comments:
1. Section 1.2 should use the new boilerplate for requirements language.
2. In Section 2,
If the responder declines and does
not include the USE_BEET_MODE notification in the response, the child
SA may be established without BEET mode enabled. If this is
unacceptable to the initiator, the initiator MUST delete the child
SA.
First, the "child SA" should be "Child SA".
Second, I think the "may" here isn't appropriate. Using "may" can result in
different processing in two peers, what if the initiator doesn't create the
Child SA but the responder does. Combining with the last sentence, I think the
processing here is that both sides need to create this Child SA without BEET
mode enabled.
Regards & Thanks！
Wei PAN (潘伟)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tero Kivinen <kivi...@iki.fi>
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 10:53 PM
> To: ipsec@ietf.org
> Subject: [IPsec] WG Adoption call of
> draft-antony-ipsecme-iekv2-beet-mode
>
> This email starts two week working group adoption call for
> draft-antony-ipsecme-iekv2-beet-mode [1] document. If you are in favor
> of adoption this document as working group document, please reply to
> this email and say so. And especially if you have any objections for
> adopting this document as WG document, send those comments to the
> list too.
>
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-antony-ipsecme-iekv2-beet-mode/
> --
> kivi...@iki.fi
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
