Re: [IPsec] NUDGE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 16 April 2013 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E7E21F9718 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dJRrUicxV8ft for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD3221F9711 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.60] (c-98-210-236-174.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.210.236.174]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3GG97rC064260 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:09:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <A113ACFD9DF8B04F96395BDEACB3404209060DC2@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:09:08 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6CD9AE1A-1D27-42A6-8F59-EC7A6A4CECA3@vpnc.org>
References: <9F821C79-A855-4060-A356-ED8E5C50048B@vpnc.org> <5697.1365476466@sandelman.ca> <A113ACFD9DF8B04F96395BDEACB3404209060652@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <17925.1365514002@sandelman.ca> <810C31990B57ED40B2062BA10D43FBF513E325@XMB111CNC.rim.net> <29765.1365518014@sandelman.ca> <810C31990B57ED40B2062BA10D43FBF513E46D@XMB111CNC.rim.net> <A113ACFD9DF8B04F96395BDEACB3404209060DC2@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] NUDGE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:09:30 -0000

+1 to "now that you understand it, please show where you were confused before" so that we can close out the document and move it to the IETF.

--Paul Hoffman

On Apr 9, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) <sfluhrer@cisco.com> wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dan Brown [mailto:dbrown@certicom.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 1:09 PM
>> To: 'Michael Richardson'
>> Cc: IPsecme WG; Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)
>> Subject: RE: [IPsec] NUDGE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>>> Of Michael Richardson
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 10:34 AM
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Is the the point here is that this is safe if we do these tests.
>>> 
>> [DB]  Yes, that is the point.
>> 
>> I gather the document's motivation was unclear to you.  Were the
>> document's specified actions also unclear to you?
>> 
>> Could you suggest a specific clarification to the document that would correct
>> what made it unclear to you?
> 
> It would be of great help  if you (Michael) could explain what was unclear.
> 
> The entire point of this draft is to explain how to do some cryptographical checks to someone who is not familiar with cryptography. Hence, any complaint of "I didn't understand that" is valid; it shows that we weren't as clear as we hoped.