Re: [secdir] [IPsec] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-07: (with COMMENT)

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Daniel,

On 17/10/2019 15:05, Daniel Migault wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just to make everyone aware, we have issued a new version that we hope 
> addresses all concerns.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-08

Thank you for posting -08 and -09.

I just need one more change: IANA pointed out that you removed the name 
of the registry from the IANA Considerations section. You should add it 
back, as not having it in the document is confusing.

Thank you,

Alexey

> Yours,
> Daniel
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:07 PM Daniel Migault 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Adam,
>
>     Thanks for the feed back. All your comments have been fixed on the
>     current local version available at:
>     https://github.com/mglt/draft-mglt-ipsecme-implicit-iv/blob/master/draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv.txt
>
>     We expect to publish the version tomorrow.
>
>     Yours,
>     Daniel
>
>
>
>     On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:51 PM Adam Roach via Datatracker
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
>         draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-07: Yes
>
>         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/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:
>         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv/
>
>
>
>         ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>         COMMENT:
>         ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         Thanks for the work on this mechanism. I have no substantive
>         comments
>         beyond those that have already been shared, although I do have
>         some
>         minor editorial comments.
>
>         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         §2:
>
>         >  In some context, such as IoT, it may be preferable to avoid
>         carrying
>
>         Nit: "...some contexts..."
>
>     Fixed
>
>         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         §5:
>
>         >  An initiator supporting this feature SHOULD propose implicit IV
>         >  algorithms in the Transform Type 1 (Encryption Algorithm)
>         >  Substructure of the Proposal Substructure inside the SA
>         Payload.
>
>         Please expand "SA" on first use.
>
>     Fixed
>
>         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         > 7.  Security Consideration
>
>         Nit: "Considerations"
>
>     Fixed
>
>
>         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         §7:
>
>         >  extensions ([RFC6311], [RFC7383]) do allow it to repeat, so
>         there is
>         >  no an easy way to derive unique IV from IKEv2 header fields.
>
>         Nit: "...not an easy way..."
>
>     Fixed
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         IPsec mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview