Re: [IPsec] Rekeying of child sa, Question on TS handling according to RFC 5996

+1

On Aug 21, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Valery Smyslov <svanru@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Tero,
> 
>> This is also question what should we do for the rfc5996bis.
>> We have two options, we removed the text saying section 2.9.2 was
>> added in the RFC5996, or we add the section 2.9.2 from the ticket #12,
>> and add note that saying that this time we really added it...
>> What does the working group feel we should do? Note, that if we add
>> the 2.9.2 that might cause delays, as I am not sure if we can do that
>> kind of change after IESG has already approved the rfc5996bis (it is
>> now in the AUTH48), meaning it might need IESG to recheck that part.
>> On the other hand I think adding the text which we already have
>> approved in 2009 to the specification would be the right thing to do,
>> as there clearly is need for clarification (as we can see from the
>> Dammvik's question). 
> 
> I think we should add this text. The text is useful and I don't see
> a reason to sacrifice it in favour to speed up RFC publication.
> 
> Regards,
> Valery.
> 
>> kivinen@iki.fi
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec