Subject: [IPsec] draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-null-auth-05.txt

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 01:08:00 +0200

In the -05 version the last paragraph of the section 3 was changed,
but I think it is missing some words:

   unauthenticated IKE peers.  Implementations might have made
   assumptions remote peers are identified.  With NULL Authentication

I think it should be "Implementations might have made assumptions that
remote peers are identified", or similar.
-- 
[email-masked]

---

From: "Valery Smyslov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:07:31 +0300

Hi Tero,

I think the current text (with reduced "that") is grammatically correct and
its meaning is clear. However, if you think that addind "that" would
improve text clarity, I (and hopely Paul) have no objections to that.

Regards,
Valery.

> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:56:21 -0400

Hello,

Thanks for making most of the suggested changes to the draft.  I see
nothing happened in section 2.4 with the 'updates' text.  Since this
requires changes to the referenced draft, it's easier to just state what is
being updated in the previous RFC with this draft.  Could we work on that
change and have it ready soon?  I'd rather do this before IETF last call or
in IESG review as I think it pretty clearly should be done.

The next telechat is April 9th and this won't make it on it, so there is
time to get this update ready without holding up the draft.

Thanks!

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:51:14 -0700

On Mar 30, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Thanks for making most of the suggested changes to the draft.  I see nothing happened in section 2.4 with the 'updates' text.  Since this requires changes to the referenced draft, it's easier to just state what is being updated in the previous RFC with this draft.  Could we work on that change and have it ready soon?  I'd rather do this before IETF last call or in IESG review as I think it pretty clearly should be done.

My interpretation from the WG discussion was that there was consensus that this document doesn't need to be marked as "updates RFC 4301". I updated the shepherd report to indicate that the WG defers to the IESG on judgement about this.

> The next telechat is April 9th and this won't make it on it, so there is time to get this update ready without holding up the draft.

Unless you want us to make more changes to the draft, you might as well put this into IETF Last Call now, even though it will miss the next telechat.

--Paul Hoffman