Re: [IPsec] Some comments to the draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-01.txt

Hi Tero,

thank you for the found typos and leftovers. We'll fix them in the next version
(there are also a couple clarifications that we want to add to the document).

Regards,
Valery.

> While approving the IANA expert request for this document I noticed
> some things that might require some fixes to the draft:
> 
> --
> 
> In section 1.1 (which will be removed) there is typo in PPK_SUUPORT.
> 
> --
> 
> In section 3 it would be better to use the same format than what is
> used in the RFC7296 when using notify payloads with data in it, i.e.
> replace
> 
>     N(PPK_IDENTITY)(PPK_ID)
> 
> with
> 
>     N(PPK_IDENTITY, PPK_ID)
> 
> (see example use in RFC7296 section 2.8.1 or RFC5685).
> 
> --
> 
> In section 4 there is text saying:
> 
>    If the responder has not been upgraded and properly configured,
>    they will both realize it, and in that case, the link will be
>    quantum secure.
> 
> I think there is something wrong with that. If the responder is not
> upgraded, then link will not be quantum safe. Same if it is not
> properly configured. I think it is trying to say that "If the
> responder has been upgraded and ..."
> 
> --
> 
> In appendix A there is text saying:
> 
>     By limiting our changes to notifications, and translating the
>     nonces, it is hoped that this would be implementable, even on
>     systems that perform much of the IKEv2 processing is in hardware.
> 
> I think the text "translating the nonces" is leftover from old design
> and should be changed to reflect the fact that this now changes the
> SK_d, SK_pi and SK_pr.
> 
> --
> kivinen@iki.fi
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec