IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 19 January 2022 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 169A63A09D4 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:02:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dN-00ntq-zwL for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:02:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 822293A17F8 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:02:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4JfFQ16v32zCLK; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:02:33 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1642618953; bh=pKATOajkLc6cTWdsHJzCcqq8q4EZbVB1Yz/Cc8dXhCk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=eTPYTv8MmBZ2m9znYutgFsyvuDTp2CH8YRs2E7qI0MhFJEXSD5FtJMIVWThc+f5XZ BjY5mBJmIQr1n06W4mbEAxNxdQaVTfpFJuaYpoqoVwUU/xh0Ygq81oN7WfZzC/vhCI K5Zkh9myt/BtAv05IB5F4+H8peFyk157DGnYm5rw=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1JeDr2ZsSP21; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:02:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:02:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 959671F2F4C; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:02:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923381F2F4B; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:02:31 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:02:31 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: 'Paul Wouters' <paul.wouters=40aiven.io@dmarc.ietf.org>, ipsec@ietf.org, tpauly@apple.com
In-Reply-To: <087e01d80d64$c8ab4d70$5a01e850$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a78d7361-7bff-fb4e-e39-21f42e69978@nohats.ca>
References: <acea85f6-1c72-3b79-a7f6-d4c234b9e7c@nohats.ca> <087e01d80d64$c8ab4d70$5a01e850$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/i2RYhXQUoX5FctlKskBC9dvM4wQ>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <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, 19 Jan 2022 19:02:41 -0000

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022, Valery Smyslov wrote:

> a new -02 version of the draft is published. We believe it addressed your comments,
> except for one, see below.

> After some discussion between the authors we decided to keep the
> original text, because it was in the RFC8229 and caused no problems.

Ok. Let's hope past performance _is_ indicative of future results :)

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email