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

Thanks Alexey,

I just posted a new version with the following text:

"""
   The IANA has assigned the following code points to the registry
   Transform Type 1 - Encryption Algorithm Transform IDs [IANA]:

"""

Yours,
Daniel

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 7:49 AM Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
wrote:

> 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 <
> daniel.migault@ericsson.com> 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 <
>> noreply@ietf.org> 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
>>> IPsec@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing listsecdir@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>