Re: [IPsec] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2bis-11.txt

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the IP Security Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF.
> 
> 	Title		: Internet Key Exchange Protocol: IKEv2
> 	Author(s)	: C. Kaufman, P. Hoffman, Y. Nir, P. Eronen
> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2bis-11.txt
> 	Pages		: 130
> 	Date		: 2010-5-17
> 	
> This document describes version 2 of the Internet Key Exchange (IKE)
>    protocol.  IKE is a component of IPsec used for performing mutual
>    authentication and establishing and maintaining security associations
>    (SAs).  This document replaces and updates RFC 4306, and includes all
>    of the clarifications from RFC 4718.
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2bis-11.txt

Note that during this update we considered the following errata:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1671
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1672
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2190
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2191
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2192
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2193
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2194
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2195
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2196

1671, 1672, and 2196 were already reworded in ikev2bis.

2190 is not needed as it's covered in the next paragraph.

No one has reported problems with 2191, 2192, 2193, or 2194.

2195 seems reasonable, but there's been no discussion.

At this point, we believe there's no action required on these.  Please 
let me know very soon whether you see a problem with this course of 
action.

spt