Subject: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 23:33:29 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the IP Security Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)
        Authors         : Yoav Nir
                          Tero Kivinen
                          Paul Wouters
                          Daniel Migault
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-00.txt
	Pages           : 7
	Date            : 2015-10-17

Abstract:
   The IPsec series of protocols makes use of various cryptographic
   algorithms in order to provide security services.  The Internet Key
   Exchange protocol provides a mechanism to negotiate which algorithms
   should be used in any given association.  However, to ensure
   interoperability between disparate implementations, it is necessary
   to specify a set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms to ensure that
   there is at least one algorithm that all implementations will have
   available.  This document defines the current set of algorithms that
   are mandatory to implement as part of IKEv2, as well as algorithms
   that should be implemented because they may be promoted to mandatory
   at some future time.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-00

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 17:09:41 -0400

Nits only:

1. This draft should probably obsolete 4307.

2. Couldn’t hurt to make 4307 an *informative* reference.

3. s3.4: r/[IKEv2]/[RFC7296] 

4. So I was going to say that you should add [RFC3536] & [RFC4753] as normative references but I guess the 1st para in s3.1 takes care of all the algorithm references in the draft.  Personally, I think that’s fine as long as all the MUST/SHOULDs are either standards track or in the downref registry (e.g., RFC4753) - and I just clicked throughout them all and they are.  Here’s to saving trees and not including a ton of unnecessary references.

spt