IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Editorial changes to RFC5996

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Sat, 19 October 2013 12:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.com>
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 6CB1B11E81A9 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 05:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.445
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.445 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.154, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iaQhKBdgQgHZ for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 05:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.checkpoint.com (smtp.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F4C211E81A6 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 05:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DAG-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([194.29.34.150]) by smtp.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9JCRPxn023027; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 15:27:25 +0300
X-CheckPoint: {52627A50-0-1B221DC2-1FFFF}
Received: from IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.2.92]) by DAG-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.3.173]) with mapi id 14.02.0347.000; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 15:27:13 +0300
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [IPsec] Editorial changes to RFC5996
Thread-Index: AQHOzA2+dLcjLOCdL06EwmTj3kWAkpn7uhEAgAAIr4A=
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 12:27:14 +0000
Message-ID: <3D85C762-B605-4CA3-A21F-21878B846486@checkpoint.com>
References: <21087.60447.758422.672867@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi> <7C1EFED8998C4309B562F2224DD39AA2@buildpc> <526141A0.5030206@gmail.com> <3AAB8F2857A0484D9CE7DF44871E7D02@buildpc> <52627368.8090200@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52627368.8090200@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.31.21.153]
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful
x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <C3DCF3FAF2C6134FA248D31114B23708@ad.checkpoint.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<ipsec@ietf.org>" <ipsec@ietf.org>, Valery Smyslov <svanru@gmail.com>, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Editorial changes to RFC5996
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 12:27:40 -0000

Hi, Yaron

Suppose that instead of sending the message to the list yesterday, Valery had submitted his comments as errata a few months ago, before Sean asked us to do the revision. Would those errata not have been verified?

If so (and I think it's true for at least #3, #4, #7, and #11, and #6 would also merit some new text), the corrections would now be in the draft. So why not now?

Yoav

On Oct 19, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Hi Yaron,
>> 
>>> Hi Valery,
>>> 
>>> Sorry for being the Bad Guy on this. Your #6 does not seem editorial to
>> 
>> I think that current text is not aligned with RFC4301.
>> We may leave it as is or try to find other form that
>> would not appear so misaligned.
> 
> Your new text is fine, if we leave it at that. If we try to add text to deal with the exceptional cases (same SPI shared between protocols), this will quickly become normative. I don't want to do it in "bis" and frankly, I think this situation is too rare to matter.
> 
>> 
>>> me. Similarly, #8 (adding new RFC 2119 language) is not editorial. I
>>> would suggest to implement #6 only if it is critical to
>>> interoperability or security, and to forgo #8.
>> 
>> What about #8 - it's just a question from me. From my feeling it must
>> be uppercase, but I might be wrong. We may leave it as is.
> 
> IETF process is very serious about the difference between lowercase and uppercase (see RFC 6919). Maybe it should have been a SHOULD to start with. But we SHOULD NOT change it for a "bis" document.
> 
>> 
>>> By the way, your correction #2 still does not do it IMHO. The sentence
>>> refers to RFC 5996. So:
>>> 
>>> "IKEv2 as stated in RFC 4306 was a change to the IKE protocol that was
>>> not backward compatible. RFC 5996 revised RFC 4306 to provide a
>>> clarification of IKEv2, making minimum changes to the IKEv2 protocol.
>>> The current document slightly revises RFC 5996 to make it suitable for
>>> progression to Internet Standard."
>> 
>> Yes, your text is for RFC5996bis, while I made my notes a while ago
>> and the text was for RFC5996. Of course your variant is better.
>> 
>> Valery.
>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yaron
>>> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email