Re: [IPsec] Editorial changes to RFC5996

[Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>]

Hi Valery,

I'm OK with this resolution.

Thanks,
	Yaron

On 2013-10-21 07:53, Valery Smyslov wrote:
> HI Yaron,
>
>> Hi Yoav,
>>
>> You're probably right in your speculation. But my point was that
>> Valery's subject line said "editorial changes", and two of these
>> changes were arguably non-editorial. Technical changes would be treated
>
> Actually, I don't think #6 is technical, as It doesn't change protocol's
> behaviour.
> Current text doesn't specify what to do if SPIs are the same for AH and
> ESP,
> and we can leave the behaviour unspecified either. The only difference
> is that current text is written as if this situation cannot happen, which
> contradicts RFC4301. We can rewrite is so, that admit that it may
> happen, but leave to implementers to decide what to do in this case.
> I think that it is important that RFC4301 and IKEv2 be aligned.
>
> What about #8 - it is a minor issue and we can forgo it.
>
> Valery.
>
>> differently in an errata review and should be treated differently in a
>> "bis" document, whose main purpose in life is to progress (i.e.,
>> stabilize) the protocol.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yaron
>>
>> On 2013-10-19 15:27, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>> Hi, Yaron
>>>
>>> Suppose that instead of sending the message to the list yesterday,
>>> Valery had submitted his comments as errata a few months ago, before
>>> Sean asked us to do the revision. Would those errata not have been
>>> verified?
>>>
>>> If so (and I think it's true for at least #3, #4, #7, and #11, and #6
>>> would also merit some new text), the corrections would now be in the
>>> draft. So why not now?
>>>
>>> Yoav
>>>
>>> On Oct 19, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Hi Yaron,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Valery,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry for being the Bad Guy on this. Your #6 does not seem
>>>>>> editorial to
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that current text is not aligned with RFC4301.
>>>>> We may leave it as is or try to find other form that
>>>>> would not appear so misaligned.
>>>>
>>>> Your new text is fine, if we leave it at that. If we try to add text
>>>> to deal with the exceptional cases (same SPI shared between
>>>> protocols), this will quickly become normative. I don't want to do
>>>> it in "bis" and frankly, I think this situation is too rare to matter.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> me. Similarly, #8 (adding new RFC 2119 language) is not editorial. I
>>>>>> would suggest to implement #6 only if it is critical to
>>>>>> interoperability or security, and to forgo #8.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about #8 - it's just a question from me. From my feeling it must
>>>>> be uppercase, but I might be wrong. We may leave it as is.
>>>>
>>>> IETF process is very serious about the difference between lowercase
>>>> and uppercase (see RFC 6919). Maybe it should have been a SHOULD to
>>>> start with. But we SHOULD NOT change it for a "bis" document.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way, your correction #2 still does not do it IMHO. The
>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>> refers to RFC 5996. So:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "IKEv2 as stated in RFC 4306 was a change to the IKE protocol that
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> not backward compatible. RFC 5996 revised RFC 4306 to provide a
>>>>>> clarification of IKEv2, making minimum changes to the IKEv2 protocol.
>>>>>> The current document slightly revises RFC 5996 to make it suitable
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> progression to Internet Standard."
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, your text is for RFC5996bis, while I made my notes a while ago
>>>>> and the text was for RFC5996. Of course your variant is better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Valery.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Yaron
>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IPsec mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>>>
>