[IPsec] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-ipsecme-11-01: (with COMMENT)
Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 06 June 2018 19:34 UTC
Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32082120049; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 12:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: ipsecme-chairs@tools.ietf.org, ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.81.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152831367012.6362.4051379754783235897.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 12:34:30 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/YcFgxxrV1EJUE0JfUOmFYAzkLbs>
Subject: [IPsec] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-ipsecme-11-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 19:34:31 -0000
Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-ipsecme-11-01: 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.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ipsecme/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Substantive comments: (1) I don't see the value in having an expiration date in a WG charter because it's not enforced in practice. The previous version of this charter said the WG would close if the charter wasn't updated by Dec 2017, but the WG continued to exist without the charter being updated. This charter seems tightly scoped enough to just get the work done according to the milestone dates or close sooner if people lose interest. (2) I think it might be worth a few words to state the reason why the goal was for the new IKEv2 mode to have the same quantum resistant properties as existed in IKEv1, rather than better/fuller quantum resistance. Nits: Based on the number of grammar and wording errors I found in this charter, I would strongly suggest doing a clean-up pass to make sure all of the text reads properly. Here is what I found: (1) s/to have similar quantum resistant properties than IKEv1 had/to have similar quantum resistant properties that IKEv1 had/ (2) s/in form of counter/in the form of a counter/ (3) I can't parse this sentence: "A growing number of use cases for constrained network - but not limited to - have shown interest in reducing ESP (resp. IKEv2) overhead by compressing ESP (resp IKEv2) fields." (4) OLD Currently IKE peers have no explicit way to indicate each other which signature format(s) the support, that leads to ineroperability problems. NEW Currently IKE peers have no explicit way to indicate to each other which signature format(s) they support. That leads to ineroperability problems. (5) The milestones need to be updated. Some of the dates and draft names are wrong.
- [IPsec] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-i… Alissa Cooper
- [IPsec] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-i… Tero Kivinen
- Re: [IPsec] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on chart… Benjamin Kaduk