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

Assuming this is agreed upon by the working group, getting the text to be added along with a diff of the draft will be helpful to share with the IESG.  They will want a quick look to make sure they agree, but it sounds like this makes sense.

Thanks,
Kathleen 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 21, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec