Re: [IPsec] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

All good, Valery, and thanks for the quick response.

Barry

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 4:42 AM Valery Smyslov <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Barry,
>
> > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: 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-qr-ikev2/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Yes, an interesting document, and thanks for that.  A few editorial
> > comments:
> >
> > — Section 1 —
> >
> >    to be quantum resistant, that is, invulnerable to an attacker with a
> >    quantum computer.
> >
> > “Invulnerable” isn’t the same as “not vulnerable”: it has a stronger
> > connotation.  You should probably use “not vulnerable” or “resistant”
> > instead.
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> >    By bringing post-
> >    quantum security to IKEv2, this note removes the need to use
> >
> > Make it “this document”, please.
>
> OK.
>
> >    This document does not replace the
> >    authentication checks that the protocol does; instead, it is done as
> >    a parallel check.
> >
> > What’s the antecedent to “it”?  Should “it is” instead be “they are”?
>
> I think it was meant that using PPK doesn't directly influence peer authentication
> in IKEv2, but I agree that the wording is not clear enough.
> It's probably better to rephrase it:
>
>     This document does not replace the
>     authentication checks that the protocol does; instead, they are
>     strengthened by using an additional secret key.
>
> Is it better?
>
> > — Section 3 —
> >
> >    when the initiator believes it has a mandatory to use PPK
> >
> > You need hyphens in “mandatory-to-use”.
>
> OK.
>
> THank you,
> Valery.
>
> >
> > —
> >
> > I also find it interesting that Alexey thought you needed to add a normative
> > reference for “ASCII”, bit not for “base64”.  Personally, I think both are
> > sufficiently well known that you need neither.
> >
>
>