Re: [IPsec] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-07: (with COMMENT)

Hi Adam,

Thanks for the feed back. All your comments have been fixed on the current
local version available at:
https://github.com/mglt/draft-mglt-ipsecme-implicit-iv/blob/master/draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv.txt

We expect to publish the version tomorrow.

Yours,
Daniel

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:51 PM Adam Roach via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-07: Yes
>
> 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for the work on this mechanism. I have no substantive comments
> beyond those that have already been shared, although I do have some
> minor editorial comments.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> §2:
>
> >  In some context, such as IoT, it may be preferable to avoid carrying
>
> Nit: "...some contexts..."
>
> Fixed

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> §5:
>
> >  An initiator supporting this feature SHOULD propose implicit IV
> >  algorithms in the Transform Type 1 (Encryption Algorithm)
> >  Substructure of the Proposal Substructure inside the SA Payload.
>
> Please expand "SA" on first use.
>
> Fixed

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > 7.  Security Consideration
>
> Nit: "Considerations"
>
Fixed

>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> §7:
>
> >  extensions ([RFC6311], [RFC7383]) do allow it to repeat, so there is
> >  no an easy way to derive unique IV from IKEv2 header fields.
>
> Nit: "...not an easy way..."
>
Fixed

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>