Re: [IPsec] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate-09: (with COMMENT)

[Valery Smyslov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,

thank you for your comments.

> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate-09: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A few editorial items:
> 
> ** Section 1.  Editorial.  s/If size of/If the size of/

Fixed.

> ** Section 1.  Editorial.  Per “… that may interfere badly with some network
> devices”, can something more precise than “interfere badly” be used? Perhaps:
> 
> OLD:
> That may interfere badly with some network devices
> 
> NEW
> Which has been shown to cause operational challenge in certain network
> configurations and devices.

Changed to the suggested text.

> ** Section 3.3.2.  Editorial.  Per “… because peers generally are unaware in
> which form other side has received them”, there is a missing word here.

I tried to rephrase this part:

"... because implementations are generally unaware in which form these messages are received by peers."

Is it better or still requires polishing?

> ** Section 3.3.2. Editorial. s/After n-th exchange/After the n-th exchange/

Fixed.

> **Section 3.3.2. Editorial.
> OLD
> The IntAuth_[i/r]*A chunk lasts from ...
> 
> NEW
> The IntAuth [i/r]*A chunk consists of the sequence of octets from ...

Done (I have a feeling that this sentence contains too many words "octet",
but let RFC Editor think about this).

> ** Section 8.  Typo. s/regadless/regardless/

Typo, fixed.

Thank you!

Regards,
Valery.