Subject: [IPsec] Minor thinko in IKEv2 rfc5996bis draft (and RFC 5996)

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 22:09:24 -0400

In looking for something else, I ran across a minor thinko in the
rfc5996bis draft that was inherited from RFC 5996.

Section 3.14, Encrypted Payload, 4th paragraph:

   When an authenticated encryption algorithm is used to protect the IKE
   SA, the construction of the Encrypted payload is different than what
   is described here.  See [AEAD] for more information on authenticated
   encryption algorithms and their use in ESP.

[AEAD] is a reference to RFC 5282, "Using Authenticated Encryption
Algorithms with the Encrypted Payload of the Internet Key Exchange
version 2 (IKEv2) Protocol."

Hence, a change is in order at the end of the paragraph:

	"ESP" -> "IKEv2"

In the unlikely event that the IESG finds nothing else to change in
the draft :-), an RFC Editor Note ought to suffice to handle this.

Should I also file an erratum against RFC 5996?

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

---

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 10:30:58 +0300

Hi David,

Thanks for detecting this glitch. I don't think this is worth an 
erratum, given that we are republishing the document.

Thanks,
	Yaron

On 05/19/2014 05:09 AM, Black, David wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>

---

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 17:16:19 +0300

> the draft :-), an RFC Editor Note ought to suffice to handle this.

Thanks. I made the change in the current xml file, i.e. so next time I
make new version this change will be there.

> Should I also file an erratum against RFC 5996?

I do not think we want to do that, as then I would have to publish new
version immediately, as the draft-kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-rfc5996bis
says it has fixes for all errata...
-- 
[email-masked]