Re: [IPsec] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Panos, Mirja, > Hi Mirja, > > To try to answer your questions > > 1) You are right. This is mentioned in a paragraph below that reads > >[...] or continue without using the >PPK (if the PPK was not configured as mandatory and the initiator >included the NO_PPK_AUTH notification i

Re: [IPsec] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Panos, hi Valery, Please see below. > On 8. Jan 2020, at 10:27, Valery Smyslov wrote: > > Hi Panos, Mirja, > >> Hi Mirja, >> >> To try to answer your questions >> >> 1) You are right. This is mentioned in a paragraph below that reads >> >> [...] or continue without using the >> PPK (

Re: [IPsec] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Barry, > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: 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, howeve

Re: [IPsec] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Mirja, > Hi Panos, hi Valery, > > Please see below. > > > On 8. Jan 2020, at 10:27, Valery Smyslov wrote: > > > > Hi Panos, Mirja, > > > >> Hi Mirja, > >> > >> To try to answer your questions > >> > >> 1) You are right. This is mentioned in a paragraph below that reads > >> > >> [...] or c

Re: [IPsec] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Valery, Please see inline. > On 8. Jan 2020, at 12:55, Valery Smyslov wrote: > > Hi Mirja, > >> Hi Panos, hi Valery, >> >> Please see below. >> >>> On 8. Jan 2020, at 10:27, Valery Smyslov wrote: >>> >>> Hi Panos, Mirja, >>> Hi Mirja, To try to answer your questions >>>

Re: [IPsec] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

All good, Valery, and thanks for the quick response. Barry On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 4:42 AM Valery Smyslov wrote: > > Hi Barry, > > > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: No Objection > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line int

[IPsec] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: 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

Re: [IPsec] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Mirja, > Hi Valery, > > Please see inline. > > > On 8. Jan 2020, at 12:55, Valery Smyslov wrote: > > > > Hi Mirja, > > > >> Hi Panos, hi Valery, > >> > >> Please see below. > >> > >>> On 8. Jan 2020, at 10:27, Valery Smyslov wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Panos, Mirja, > >>> > Hi Mirja, >

Re: [IPsec] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Valery, Inline again. > On 8. Jan 2020, at 14:27, Valery Smyslov wrote: > > Hi Mirja, > >> Hi Valery, >> >> Please see inline. >> >>> On 8. Jan 2020, at 12:55, Valery Smyslov wrote: >>> >>> Hi Mirja, >>> Hi Panos, hi Valery, Please see below. > On 8. Jan 2020,

Re: [IPsec] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Mirja, [...] > > It is definitely better, thank you! > > > >For this purpose, if using PPKs for communication with this responder > >is optional for the initiator (based on the mandatory_or_not flag), > >then the initiator includes a NO_PPK_AUTH notification in the above > message

Re: [IPsec] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Valery, Both look good to me. Thanks! One typo: s/mesages/messages/ Thanks! Mirja > On 8. Jan 2020, at 15:04, Valery Smyslov wrote: > > Hi Mirja, > > [...] > >>> It is definitely better, thank you! >>> >>> For this purpose, if using PPKs for communication with this responder >>> i

Re: [IPsec] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

> Hi Valery, > > Both look good to me. Thanks! > > One typo: s/mesages/messages/ Thank you! Regards, Valery. > Thanks! > Mirja > > > > > On 8. Jan 2020, at 15:04, Valery Smyslov wrote: > > > > Hi Mirja, > > > > [...] > > > >>> It is definitely better, thank you! > >>> > >>> For this purp

Re: [IPsec] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Roman, > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: 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, howe

Re: [IPsec] graveyard: deprecate->historic

> On Jan 1, 2020, at 17:01, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 09:41:11PM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >> >>> "this document" (i.e., the RFC-to-be) does not actually effecuate the move >>> to Historic status; the separate "status-chan

Re: [IPsec] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Roman, Two more comments in addition to Valery's. > > ** Section 1. Per “Recent achievements in developing quantum computers …”, > > is there a citation? [I-D.hoffman-c2pq] is a good citation which we use already that talks about the QC concern and Grover and Shor's algorithms. So we coul

Re: [IPsec] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

> On Jan 8, 2020, at 04:41, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > >> >> I think one or two RTT is too short, moreover since it's an initial request, >> no RTT is yet measured (IKEv2 uses UDP as primary transport). >> We try here to be in line with core IKEv2 spec, which deliberately >> doesn't give any co

[IPsec] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: 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

[IPsec] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: 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 ht

[IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ikev2-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Security Maintenance and Extensions WG of the IETF. Title : Group Key Management using IKEv2 Authors : Brian Weis Valer

Re: [IPsec] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Adam, > Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: 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.