[IPsec] RFC5996bis editorial change in section 1.5 Informational Messages outside of an IKE SA (Was Editorial changes to RFC5996).

Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> Tue, 12 November 2013 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <kivinen@iki.fi>
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 4238521E80AC for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:01:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.585
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, 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 Yvj6YHG84lrG for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:01:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.kivinen.iki.fi [IPv6:2001:1bc8:100d::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62FA921E8093 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:01:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rACJ1iU8002213 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:01:44 +0200 (EET)
Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (8.14.7/8.12.11) id rACJ1iWA008924; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:01:44 +0200 (EET)
X-Authentication-Warning: fireball.kivinen.iki.fi: kivinen set sender to kivinen@iki.fi using -f
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <21122.31512.200431.405925@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:01:44 +0200
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To: Valery Smyslov <svanru@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7C1EFED8998C4309B562F2224DD39AA2@buildpc>
References: <21087.60447.758422.672867@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi> <7C1EFED8998C4309B562F2224DD39AA2@buildpc>
X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.3.1 (x86_64--netbsd)
X-Edit-Time: 4 min
X-Total-Time: 6 min
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: [IPsec] RFC5996bis editorial change in section 1.5 Informational Messages outside of an IKE SA (Was Editorial changes to RFC5996).
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, 12 Nov 2013 19:01:48 -0000

Valery Smyslov writes:
> 6. Page 19.
>     "The recipient of this notification cannot tell
>    whether the SPI is for AH or ESP, but this is not important because
>    the SPIs are supposed to be different for the two."
> 
> Why "is supposed to be different"? RFC4301 clearly states:
>     "For a unicast SA, the SPI can be used by itself to specify an SA, or it 
> may be
>       used in conjunction with the IPsec protocol type."
> 
> So I suggest to change as follows:
> 
>     "The recipient of this notification cannot tell
>    whether the SPI is for AH or ESP, but this is not important because
>     in many cases the SPIs will be different for the two."
> 
> And some words should be added for the case when SPIs are not
> different for AH and ESP. I have no good suggestion here.

Changed:

	The recipient of this notification cannot tell whether the SPI
	is for AH or ESP, but this is not important because the SPIs
	are supposed to be different for the two.

To:

	The recipient of this notification cannot tell whether the SPI
	is for AH or ESP, but this is not important because in many
	cases the SPIs will be different for the two.
-- 
kivinen@iki.fi