[IPsec] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate-09: (with COMMENT)

[Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate-09: 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 https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1. , paragraph 5, comment:
>    This specification describes a way to transfer a large amount of data
>    in IKEv2 using UDP transport.  For this purpose the document defines

To a transport person, "a large amount of data" sounds like a bulk transfer.
Surely this isn't the intention here? Could the text more precisely state for
which data sizes this is an appropriate mechanism?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Paragraph 3, nit:
> v2-intermediate-09 Abstract This documents defines a new exchange, called Int
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
Consider using the singular form after the singular determiner "This".

Section 1. , paragraph 3, nit:
> um Computer (QC) resistant ones. Currently most QC-resistant key exchange me
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Currently".

Section 1. , paragraph 3, nit:
> r IKEv2, as defined in [RFC8229]. However this approach has significant draw
>                                   ^^^^^^^
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "However".

Section 3.3.2. , paragraph 17, nit:
> ready to be encrypted) fragments. However care must be taken to properly rep
>                                   ^^^^^^^
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "However".

Section 3.3.2. , paragraph 18, nit:
> e[i/r] and SK_a[i/r] used for its messages protection (see Section 3.3.1) an
>                                   ^^^^^^^^
An apostrophe may be missing.

Section 3.4. , paragraph 2, nit:
> he peers can be certain that they receives messages from the party they perf
>                                   ^^^^^^^^
The pronoun "they" must be used with a non-third-person form of a verb.

Section 5. , paragraph 4, nit:
> nt interoperable implementations of this specifications from the following v
>                                     ^^^^
The demonstrative "this" may not agree with the plural noun "specifications".
Did you mean "these"?