Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-01.txt

["Jin Zhang" <[e-mail]>]

my 2 cents:

1) Page 7, sec 2.2 Use of sequence number for message id. AH and ESP both
has a sequence number begins with 1, why IKE will begin with 0? Somebody may
forget to set the sequence number but still sends out a valid sequence
number, personally think 1 is better.

2) Page 4, Section 1.2 Change history. How about most recently first?

3) Page 4 para 5, "If the Responder feels it is under attack,..."  To
implement the 'FEELS' is much more difficult than 'If the Responder's local
policy requires anti-attack...' Anyway, maybe how to implement is not under
consideration.

4) The IKEv1 has a seperate RFC regarding OAKLEY/ISAKMP, and IKEv2 combines
them together. However, the sequence should be kept consistant. It is maybe
better to have section 7 'The IKE Header" moved to an earlier position, in
order to avoid situation like that we have HDRs, payloads everywhere before
we have a formal introduction to them.

5) Maybe too picky for this one. Page 14  para 3. " To negotiate an SA that
does ESP, IPcomp, and AH, ...three proposals... one proposing ESP, ... one
proposing AH... and one proposing IPcomp".  It should have consistant
sequence, say, "ESP, AH and IPcomp"

6) Page 11. Section 2.6 Cookies. " ..the SA is uniquely defined by the
recipient's SA identifier ..." From the context, the recipient's SA
identifier means the Recipient's SPI (responder cookie). How this value can
uniquely define the IKE-SA? You mean <SPI, recipient IP>? or <SPI, recipient
identity>?  If so, we still need a hash, there seems no way to be
"convenient for the IKE-SA identifier to be an index into a table". I must
have missed something?

Thanks,

Jin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Harkins" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:28 PM
Subject: draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-01.txt


>   An updated IKEv2 draft has been submitted to the I-D editor. Due to
> the last second rush it might be a while before it appears in the
> repository. So in the interest of giving everyone a few more days to
> read and comment I've posted it at:
>
>      http://www.lounge.org/draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-01.txt
>
> Comments to the list, please.
>
>   Enjoy!
>
>     Dan.
>
>