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

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

OK thanks. Those changes would make the document clearer for me, at least.

Regards,

—John

> On Mar 3, 2022, at 2:16 AM, Valery Smyslov <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi John,
> 
>> John Scudder 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XGQjnyKG320X2cLxK9O8lUUdHDPAUAqktikCKjmq47JKLaRtoV4JBm_gnZUvhQ$
>> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XGQjnyKG320X2cLxK9O8lUUdHDPAUAqktikCKjmq47JKLaRtoV4JBm-OaYI_mg$
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Thanks for this. I have just a couple minor questions/suggestions.
>> 
>> 1. Section 3.2, “these exchanges MUST follow each other”. I suppose what is
>> meant is, “these exchanges MUST be sequential” (this hardly seems to need to be
>> mandated, but OK). Or is something else intended, in which case, what is it?
> 
> No, you got the point. If you think “these exchanges MUST be sequential”
> is more natural English wording, I'll use it. As a non-native speaker
> I probably don't feel the difference...
> 
>> 2. In Section 3.4, there is:
>> 
>>   not all error notifications may ever appear in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE
>>   exchange (for example, errors concerning authentication are generally
>>   only applicable to the IKE_AUTH exchange).
>> 
>> I can’t make sense of what the word “ever” is doing there. It makes sense to me
>> if I remove “ever” to make it “not all error notifications may appear”. It’s OK
>> if I change “ever” to “even”. But I don’t get it, as written. Am I missing
>> something, or would one of my edits be appropriate?
> 
> This is again an artefact of me being a non-native speaker.
> By using this word I intended to stress that some error notifications
> may _never_ appear in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE, but it's OK for me to drop this word.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Regards,
> Valery.