Re: [Lwip] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-04

Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 13 April 2021 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E4823A1B3C; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NCcqWxWJZY7S; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x732.google.com (mail-qk1-x732.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::732]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A118B3A1B41; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x732.google.com with SMTP id e13so8379472qkl.6; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MD0VQbzPsqYsNjx0eV/i+ieE1CILbWRrQ4KQaF+dKfc=; b=Zzy/L9rBye1I0voJFU5gwYF8Xb63ecFP+x4Wkx2+dHNw7Bbt37R6neDr+cUa1QnUia I9Jo8M4+RuFvx+mEg3rtm9LOsPklPqHEbwjBb9mWQ0YCWYG7PIS1HBrxs+ZPQrgINN4B umgBqFr14uhi2BPsbf2lDiDhaBhZnZlAexBeSDI9jFrQlNvinA58EfKAO6xkjt2/GRKv EzwZwqTyqKoRdMMAZIFbwB5kDn70R3tf82ApRQF1uPBnz2Hnc73yITY7nqn1BOQajxqH hz/gICJD8jONoGWyCRH0bSyx1/Q1j0VKPzCZWI8HQeD4cFrTiJ69q8D3vT6LHNzvJDOy mN4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MD0VQbzPsqYsNjx0eV/i+ieE1CILbWRrQ4KQaF+dKfc=; b=YtRes0vBMv3OICHtAsEvt1NOpaRf3RraCKde6VLvT1Nmh1NMfhCLxWsTtCqSWxita7 pbNNlvppGNiGjY6xoQRwqrIY4jvA7xznLgSl4u5XyoTr4uW7Ct+cdIPLjQsC3ttBsXF8 4UARnblHtw3ofbrWBJWVpvVExB2x47unBTe6alo3ePugNf0rejLm+syJuzuUzDeto9/a rXnijO8pldu8QEavexgTp1kY2/Wp8EGAv37K+HsO39wkKQztOTB4zDXqX2XBQ3ieTRhA mQMUiJV2AIvmb8bV9vyp6FQP/wkU2kQNVL334oKqNtIv1JVuIdGMbDXVasCs2fuCDCOh a4yA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532X8MozpjBuv+Ryz3vHpxPXy4O1lpSx9+Zn7bom9EIBUhpr6Tog /WJzfxirrCq91R2wCK2JzXHkLDByxjSSYVE3geI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyOj1Mnq/lq0j2Hid5UnpZwNAzkU3SpnKxEywkz77aFK/M3Mz28GzEgY8Pn2DDTEj0p+Y7sSNMhYzLtPr235TA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:9d7:: with SMTP id y23mr13810775qky.251.1618327807494; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161735028661.10961.96470868100787043@ietfa.amsl.com> <DM6PR15MB2379F66D8CEDEB7301AA7427E3799@DM6PR15MB2379.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <0a2801d72c42$013d57a0$03b806e0$@gmail.com> <CADZyTknXWfvhWcjW6WFkBAFRg4FxE1Y9=xCZJpwDt32vOxJQfg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADZyTknXWfvhWcjW6WFkBAFRg4FxE1Y9=xCZJpwDt32vOxJQfg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:29:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CADZyTk=OS2sEfyK2=GM6uL4kF=08Lw0cqqS6Xdj0YVet_7iNcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
Cc: "gen-art >> General area reviewing team" <gen-art@ietf.org>, lwip@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000188ea105bfdc4e7f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lwip/fG1Hiq15P28sCUfztbLXdv04UdM>
Subject: Re: [Lwip] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-04
X-BeenThere: lwip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Lightweight IP stack. Official mailing list for IETF LWIG Working Group." <lwip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lwip/>
List-Post: <mailto:lwip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:30:27 -0000

Hi Roni,

As a follow up, I just posted version 05 that reflects the change to
address your concern.

Yours,
Daniel

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 9:33 AM Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Roni,
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Yours,
> Daniel
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 2:40 AM Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Daniel,
>> About the difference between the draft and RFC4303 when reading for the
>> first time I thought that section 7 is not the same as 2.8 in RFC4303 about
>> integrity only but it was my mistake. So forget this comment. Still you use
>> authentication while RFC4303 use integrity but the recommendation is the
>> same.
>> Roni
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Daniel Migault [mailto:daniel.migault@ericsson.com]
>> > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2021 3:53 AM
>> > To: Roni Even; gen-art@ietf.org
>> > Cc: draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp.all@ietf.org; lwip@ietf.org
>> > Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-04
>> >
>> > Hi Roni,
>> >
>> > Thanks for the review. We can of course add that RFC4303 is
>> authoritative in
>> > the main body. I will update the document.
>> >
>> > I am wondering what differences you have in mind. Of course the
>> document are
>> > different but I am wondering if there is anything we should clarify.
>> >
>> > Yours,
>> > Daniel
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Roni Even via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
>> > Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 3:58 AM
>> > To: gen-art@ietf.org
>> > Cc: draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp.all@ietf.org; lwip@ietf.org
>> > Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-04
>> >
>> > Reviewer: Roni Even
>> > Review result: Ready with Issues
>> >
>> > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review
>> > Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG
>> for the
>> > IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call
>> comments.
>> >
>> > For more information, please see the FAQ at
>> >
>> > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>> >
>> > Document: draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-??
>> > Reviewer: Roni Even
>> > Review Date: 2021-04-02
>> > IETF LC End Date: None
>> > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>> >
>> > Summary:
>> > This is an early review of the draft. I find the 04 version easy to
>> understand but
>> > have one comment
>> >
>> > Major issues:
>> >
>> > Minor issues:
>> > the last paragraph in the abstract , mostly the last sentence " RFC
>> 4303 remains
>> > the authoritative description." should be in my opinion in the main
>> body of the
>> > document and not only in the abstract. I also see some difference
>> between the
>> > document and RFC4303
>> >
>> > Nits/editorial comments:
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lwip mailing list
>> Lwip@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Migault
> Ericsson
>


-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson