[netext] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-08: Discuss

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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


5.2: What happens if the IPsec SA is re-negotiated
automatically? Isn't there a potential layering/sync problem
so that these notifications couldn't ever be verified since a
new SA would be in use? I think you just need to say the same
or an automatically renegotiated SA (not sure what's the
right terminology, sorry). I think 6.1 has the same issue and
maybe other bits too. That kind of check also seems to
imply that the interface between the MAG or LMA and the
IPsec code needs to know that the right SA is being used
which could be tricky. What's really done here?


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


- 4.1: What does "ANI-PARAMS-REQUESTED" mean? Probably all
these reasons need an explanation and/or (forward) reference.