Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks-04

[Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your review!

We initially chose a cleaner solution which would have required draft 
merkle-ikev2-ke-brainpool to depend on the current one. The authors of 
that other draft requested this change so that they can move forward to 
publication. I agree it's not ideal, but this band-aid allows them to go 
forward while not creating a downref here. And for the long-term (once 
this is published) we have not created too much of a mess...

Best,
	Yaron

On 2013-05-13 13:30, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks-04
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review Date: 5/13/13
> IETF LC End Date: 5/20/13
> IESG Telechat date:
>
> Summary:
>
> This document is Ready. It is clearly written and easy to follow, even for a non-expert in security. I appreciated the sections that describe the transition to implementations that support the update and the ones that describe behavior upon test failures - which are of value to implementers and operators. One minor issue related to the IANA registry may be only an issue of clarification.
>
> Major issues:
>
> Minor issues:
>
> The IANA Considerations Sections mention that Groups 27-30 have been recently defined in [I-D.merkle-ikev2-ke-brainpool]. This is an Informational Reference which is somehow odd, because without this reference the IANA actions could not be completed. On the other hand making [I-D.merkle-ikev2-ke-brainpool] Normative Reference would create a downref because the later is informational. I believe this is OK, because I see the document in RFC Editor Queue waiting for IANA actions, which may actually be exactly the ones described in this I-D, but a cleaner solution would have been not defining at all Groups 27-30 here.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
>
>