Going over this again: is there a specific reason we should *not* adopt this
draft? We (at least, the people concerned about PQ security) need it, and I do
not see any downsides to this straightforward draft.
If there are no objections, what do we do to move this draft forward?
From: Rebecca G
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-rename-esn-00.txt is now available. It
is a work item of the IP Security Maintenance and Extensions (IPSECME) WG of
the IETF.
Title: Renaming Extended Sequence Number (ESN) Transform Type in the
Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)
Autho
On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, Tero Kivinen wrote:
Subject: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-rename-esn
I am in favour of adoption and have reviewed the document. Thanks to
Valery for writing this draft.
Comments:
I don't like the phrase "Transform ID 0" because each transform type has
its own
As we talked earlied when doing g-ikev2 IETF last call, the text
talking about renaming ESN transform type got separated to this new
draft, and this will start one (1) week working group last call of the
draft.
I try to make this fast so it can catch up the g-ikev2 draft (which is
in IETF LC until
