Re: [IPsec] Response to Pasi's AD comments on the roadmap draft

[<[e-mail]>]

Paul Hoffman wrote:

> > > >  - Section 5.7.4: "It also includes 3 EC DH groups (groups 19-21)
> >> >  that were previously defined in [RFC4753]". The normative
> >> >  specification for groups 19-21 in IKE is still 4753/5753bis, so I
> >> >  would propose just omitting this sentence.
> >>
> >> OK - but won't people be confused if they look at RFC 5114 and see
> >> that there are additional groups defined there?
> >
> >The situation of RFC 5114 is quite confusing, I agree (because it's
> >IMHO not totally clear whether the errata for RFC 4753 would apply to
> >RFC 5114 too).
> >
> >Perhaps "It also includes 3 EC DH groups (groups 19-21) for
> >information; however, the normative specification for these groups
> >is [4753bis]."?
> 
> It is inappropriate for this document to say what the normative
> specification for another document is, particularly one that is as
> confusing as RFC 5114.

Assuming 4753bis gets approved by IESG before the roadmap (which seems
very likely), I think we can say this. Or perhaps we could
say "current" instead "normative"?

  "RFC 5114 also included 3 EC DH groups (groups 19-21) that were
  originally defined in [RFC4753]; however, the current specification
  for these groups is [4753bis]".

Best regards,
Pasi