[IPsec] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-08: (with COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 17 October 2019 03:30 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 344B2120024; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv@ietf.org, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>, ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, kivinen@iki.fi, ipsec@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.105.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <157128300620.9968.15171563029563358723.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:30:06 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/kJp4FGVecl0zbWgHOyJrJ5o4eI8>
Subject: [IPsec] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 03:30:06 -0000
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-08: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for addressing my Discuss! A few new comments on the -08: Abstract If we're going to differentiate between nonce and IV, I think that the algorithms require a unique but not necessarily unpredictable *nonce*, rather than *IV*. Section 2 nit: s/Initialize/Initialization/ nit: s/similar mechanism/similar mechanisms/ plural Section 7 My previous ballot was trying to note that the sender/receiver counters MUST be reset (as noted here) even without this document, as part of the core ESP requirements. So we don't need to use the "MUST" here as if it's a new requirement; we can just say that this behavior is already present due to the preexisting requirements
- [IPsec] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ie… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- Re: [IPsec] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draf… Daniel Migault
- Re: [IPsec] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draf… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [IPsec] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draf… Daniel Migault