[skipping parts that require no further discussion]
> >> Introduction:
> >> "At the time this extension was being developed, it was a consensus in the
> >> IPsecME WG that it is the IPsec traffic the one that mostly needs to be
> >> protected.", could be: "At the time this extension was being developed, the
> >> consensus in the IPsecME WG was to specify protection for the IPsec
> >> traffic."
> > Hmm. The current text stresses that the main idea of the consensus was that
> > only the IPsec traffic required this protection, not IKE traffic. Perhaps:
> >
> > At the time this extension was being developed, the consensus in the
> IPsecME WG was
> > that it is the IPsec traffic the one that mostly needs to be protected.
> >
> > Does it work for you?
>
> Happy for you to use other words, but this doesn't quite read correctly,
> perhaps something like:
>
> At the time this extension was being developed, the consensus in the
> IPsecME
> WG was
> that only the IPsec traffic was to be protected.
I think that this is a bit too strong. The consensus was that we (IPsecME WG)
wanted to protect both IPsec and IKE traffic, but we believed that the
protection
of the IPsec traffic was more important than the protection of the IKE traffic,
thus if the latter was difficult, we could sacrifice it. (Sorry for being
tedious here,
I just want to accurately describe what was decided then and why it was
done in such a way).
So, perhaps:
At the time this extension was being developed, the consensus in the
IPsecME
WG was that the IPsec traffic was more important to be protected than the
IKE traffic.
Does it work for you?
> Thanks, for your quick response, I enjoyed learning about this.
No problem, you welcome.
> Your responsible AD will tell you if you should make a new revision, but
> likely you'll need to do them when you have collected sufficient comments.
Sure.
Regards,
Valery.
> Gorry
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
