Re: [IPsec] IETFLC comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2bis-08

[<[e-mail]>]

Paul Hoffman wrote:

> >- One of the changes is listed in Section 1.7 twice. I'd suggest
> >combining
> >
> >   In section 1.3.2, changed "The KEi payload SHOULD be included" to
> >   be "The KEi payload MUST be included".  This also led to changes in
> >   section 2.18.
> >
> >and
> >
> >   Section 2.18 requires doing a Diffie-Hellman exchange when rekeying
> >   the IKE_SA.  In theory, RFC 4306 allowed a policy where the Diffie-
> >   Hellman exchange was optional, but this was not useful (or
> >   appropriate) when rekeying the IKE_SA.
> >
> >as follows:
> >
> >   This document requires doing a Diffie-Hellman exchange when
> >   rekeying the IKE_SA (and thus requires including the KEi/KEr
> >   payloads).  In theory, RFC 4306 allowed a policy where the
> >   Diffie-Hellman exchange was optional (and KEi/KEr payloads could be
> >   omitted), this was not useful (or appropriate) when rekeying the
> >   IKE_SA.
> 
> Disagree. Where possible, I tried to list the actual sections where
> changes were made, and your proposed rewording loses the two places.
> The current text is more explicit than the proposed change.

Well, this depends on whether you think Section 1.7 should list
textual changes in the document, or clarification/changes to the
protocol.

IMHO, it should be the latter, but I see that currently it's really
listing the textual changes (even when they clearly don't have any
impact on the protocol); so perhaps listing these separately is
consistent with that...

Best regards,
Pasi