Re: [IPsec] Response to Pasi's AD comments on the roadmap draft

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

At 1:38 PM +0100 3/16/10, <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>> > > >  - Section 5.7.4: "It also includes 3 EC DH groups (groups 19-21)
>> >> >  that were previously defined in [RFC4753]". The normative
>> >> >  specification for groups 19-21 in IKE is still 4753/5753bis, so I
>> >> >  would propose just omitting this sentence.
>> >>
>> >> OK - but won't people be confused if they look at RFC 5114 and see
>> >> that there are additional groups defined there?
>> >
>> >The situation of RFC 5114 is quite confusing, I agree (because it's
>> >IMHO not totally clear whether the errata for RFC 4753 would apply to
>> >RFC 5114 too).
>> >
>> >Perhaps "It also includes 3 EC DH groups (groups 19-21) for
>> >information; however, the normative specification for these groups
>> >is [4753bis]."?
>>
>> It is inappropriate for this document to say what the normative
>> specification for another document is, particularly one that is as
>> confusing as RFC 5114.
>
>Assuming 4753bis gets approved by IESG before the roadmap (which seems
>very likely), I think we can say this. Or perhaps we could
>say "current" instead "normative"?
>
>  "RFC 5114 also included 3 EC DH groups (groups 19-21) that were
>  originally defined in [RFC4753]; however, the current specification
>  for these groups is [4753bis]".

That works for me.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium