[IPsec] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke-10: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke-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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke-10
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. Even if my IPsec knowledge is
now very dated, I find it relatively easy to read.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Tero Kivinen for the shepherd's write-up including the WG
consensus *but* the justification of the intended status is missing.

Other thanks to Geoff Huston for his Last Call DNS directorate review at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke-07-dnsdir-lc-huston-2022-10-10/

Please note that Charles Perkins is the Internet directorate reviewer (at my
request) and you may want to consider this int-dir reviews as well when Charles
will complete the review (no need to wait for it though):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke/reviewrequest/16618/

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

Out of all Paul Wouters's points, I support the last one about AH (I am not
experience enough to appreciate the other ones). It is also related to bullet
3) of section 2.

### Missing reference RFC 8247

As indicated by idnits tool, RFC 8247 is used as a reference but is not defined
;-)

### Section 2

The bullet 2) is a nice explanation about *why* there must be multiple key
exchanges with different methods. Until reading that part, I was really
wondering why this I-D was about the link with PQC and multiple key exchanges.
Should this be mentioned in the abstract already ?

Should "FIPS" be prefixed by "USA" as in "USA FIPS" ?

## NITS

### Section 1.2

`payloads longer than 64k` suggest to specify the units of measure.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments