From nobody Wed Dec 6 19:25:27 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8CA128B93 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:25:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pAmnVU8ebuBa for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:25:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8F761241F3 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:25:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ysgpm0rSpz35S for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 04:25:20 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1512617120; bh=THB1m/J8rHaVWbGZZFwS75qHmmqKbuj/L4wZHo0HDoM=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=gmh85j3SlpFOTWLV+637u1NYIlhQrUVNVEpcLXbn89Mzhs/qrX3m4+XYI+k+yA4ep NLCHWcJpzmF3jU/nCDIaEWfolxdng61ZIeRrnDFbOu+bnDS4u9kL8uXOJW7Cv2tbbz nRSfPMMbQQp1zCKmvU4tP1/pnnly3jAixU/IVYWw= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q4uVu4CEOzpl for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 04:25:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 04:25:18 +0100 (CET) Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CC70BF28; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 22:25:17 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca CC70BF28 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE5540C8A1F for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 22:25:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 22:25:17 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Wouters To: "ipsec@ietf.org WG" In-Reply-To: <151179677407.30946.6583016989870225096@ietfa.amsl.com> Message-ID: References: <151179677407.30946.6583016989870225096@ietfa.amsl.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-00.txt X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 03:25:26 -0000 On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > Subject: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-00.txt This draft was also submitted without marking it as replacing draft-mglt-ipsecme-implicit-iv. This means there is no diff available to read the changes :( Can you fix that? Paul From nobody Sat Dec 9 14:40:27 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF3EB126BF0 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 14:40:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.12 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qdevfmh_2uqz for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 14:40:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.acr.fi [212.16.101.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C467124207 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 14:40:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from fireball.acr.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id vB9MeEeS008098 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 10 Dec 2017 00:40:14 +0200 (EET) Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.acr.fi (8.15.2/8.14.8/Submit) id vB9MeEBO000955; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 00:40:14 +0200 (EET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <23084.26190.711815.906719@fireball.acr.fi> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 00:40:14 +0200 From: Tero Kivinen To: Paul Wouters Cc: "ipsec\@ietf.org WG" In-Reply-To: References: <151179677407.30946.6583016989870225096@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 25.1.1 (x86_64--netbsd) X-Edit-Time: 4 min X-Total-Time: 3 min Archived-At: Subject: Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-00.txt X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:40:26 -0000 Paul Wouters writes: > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > > Subject: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-00.txt > > This draft was also submitted without marking it as replacing > draft-mglt-ipsecme-implicit-iv. This means there is no diff > available to read the changes :( Yes, and I fixed it on 2017-11-27 as can be seen from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv/history/ and at least I can see the diffs on that page too... > Can you fix that? No need to fix it as it is already correct. -- kivinen@iki.fi From nobody Tue Dec 12 20:53:22 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0DB128E00 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:53:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m5RGLSV36KhE for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:53:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61080128DF3 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:53:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3yxPTQ6ZVZz3Dg for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 05:53:14 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1513140794; bh=nNZBxtfhBLPH8DApor9+kW0yyrvHA4IT58VQ5qsQb6I=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=irrai8k5UT5f6L2DT+2KkaJ9FHeutf1Tnsj/f7F2r8OKpaSWRWoUGzIad+OFxS+vO 7M9Ijn5R75JXoxafyUZ3JN7kjyXlNg+jj4fhqIAUIIstPJvLuC6pOYrrXW0nszGyAY diUEi5r3sg+r/EubQzVwIzUbW5M5bnWQ2AO8iNs4= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7Gq9KS7yw-Bk for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 05:53:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 05:53:13 +0100 (CET) Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5ADE970A3ED; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 23:53:11 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 5ADE970A3ED Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5425C4070CC7 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 23:53:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 23:53:11 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Wouters To: "ipsec@ietf.org WG" In-Reply-To: <23084.26190.711815.906719@fireball.acr.fi> Message-ID: References: <151179677407.30946.6583016989870225096@ietfa.amsl.com> <23084.26190.711815.906719@fireball.acr.fi> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-00.txt X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 04:53:21 -0000 On Sun, 10 Dec 2017, Tero Kivinen wrote: > Yes, and I fixed it on 2017-11-27 as can be seen from > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv/history/ > > and at least I can see the diffs on that page too... Ah yes, now I could see the diff too. Thanks. I'm fine with the document moving forwards. I have some minor textual nits that I will send to the authors. Paul From nobody Wed Dec 13 17:28:16 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7277C1243FE for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:28:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.398 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EQj8w1CJOVFW for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:28:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf0-x230.google.com (mail-lf0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8D5E12421A for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:28:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id i2so4786024lfe.9 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:28:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=w7NM6TlsB/oF5+Isyif8anLItYbQkb0FeBRIdKcNnQw=; b=uyfSrtlKunUauP0xMEXTFVki1G53X682zhucvtrLz4KkvJs7QuiNbI3mHfuywPeODI Jas5P2QOJM1Hed7NAzESHXjbHhTqc3swQNGnlMkR1YXdEZ/rRErlOTSlrWdKYf8xPA41 VL150HmnjkLejHU4p35rby3/hB+R++neb5u7zsu8vIDK5SX3ReRg9gtTiPo2j1AP2dw8 i7TlYMzgMUWzX2R8oXN8TmrVxa4RKsfq34UhhpgrFtnwC4DK5o1CgN1wmXtnp1E4mwJy 4gfeD9eXu1h2wbrN2Qg3M5uGQ9m27DGhVIZzzGYXVPkLkFNtMLRQgdNUN72C8nL5wjiV 0daw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=w7NM6TlsB/oF5+Isyif8anLItYbQkb0FeBRIdKcNnQw=; b=A2m6mt4TY6V/+3YwqEjq0F02lC1arsqIJ50upvnIf6QDwjp9c9Awbab6KxuzZmD/k6 05413SK8kq8A7dKXUhv4L5ms+eLqDMEUror4eyu3vhYUwFhaXk1BKh8i8pxxRGp7nsxb uC5ptXx02uq1fATVdm56wMh/wZY6Y67zx4TAIhOE2oC83dgqdqPWsoXkJX2XXsbiKmGf 1oTDajL723UGQ8fIz36pND/zokcHb2ppJjyPvLP7UIMzuT9obLbfGTNNJEhfzEJIIQw+ js+yBoZby9P0GQmfh5JbAnDkSQRjfAiMdiVaTa69z3072rlr0uhWK8k++UxKukzjNmMx Yx0A== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mKjH9v4GT7cai8nAEPqOD19Agb5meGmd0+G/JXzJN8MUQPLum03 ZUv6VEA7dDXn++3S0EygSTExCbZ8bINOiKWRua4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovZrGhb7vK+i5wf5tPg5X/+3D+dhPwxPKSYgI32jzc7FDIJLxH5krclB9jeDxk9HNEUf6TmvG+L8pMMjOR+jy0= X-Received: by 10.46.101.74 with SMTP id z71mr2668191ljb.35.1513214891300; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:28:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mglt.ietf@gmail.com Received: by 10.46.80.17 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:28:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <151179677407.30946.6583016989870225096@ietfa.amsl.com> <23084.26190.711815.906719@fireball.acr.fi> From: Daniel Migault Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 20:28:10 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: dOXPY_lBaGKXTm1CDzk80ND-4RI Message-ID: To: Paul Wouters Cc: "ipsec@ietf.org WG" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114ab1bc109b3a056042cc45" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-00.txt X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 01:28:15 -0000 --001a114ab1bc109b3a056042cc45 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Happy to update the document ! Any other feed backs are welcome as well. Yours, Daniel On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:53 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Sun, 10 Dec 2017, Tero Kivinen wrote: > > Yes, and I fixed it on 2017-11-27 as can be seen from >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv/history/ >> >> and at least I can see the diffs on that page too... >> > > Ah yes, now I could see the diff too. Thanks. > > I'm fine with the document moving forwards. I have some minor textual > nits that I will send to the authors. > > Paul > > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > --001a114ab1bc109b3a056042cc45 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Happy to update the document ! Any other feed ba= cks are welcome as well.
Yours,
Daniel
=C2= =A0

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:53 PM, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
On Sun, 10 D= ec 2017, Tero Kivinen wrote:

Yes, and I fixed it on 2017-11-27 as can be seen from

https://datatracker.ietf.org= /doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv/history/

and at least I can see the diffs on that page too...

 Ah yes, now I could see the diff too. Thanks.

I'm fine with the document moving forwards. I have some minor textual nits that I will send to the authors.

Paul


_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

--001a114ab1bc109b3a056042cc45-- From nobody Mon Dec 18 10:20:42 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD9A12D7FB for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 10:20:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V7eu8DWrhP-s for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 10:20:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12C7E126D74 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 10:20:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3z0q8h2Mh9z3DD for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 19:20:36 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1513621236; bh=lLu77ATFBrY1wxdlO10qNZcPG7MbzWot8hgSj4LUbAA=; h=Date:From:To:Subject; b=ct8h45ZVGAu5IDIyWAvkmdneiRQSyV4xOSxMLU60Xi+xGXKdK8VGdXUps8pG8oiew baOyPUj+oGDBscfNCysvEXAn0kDkPYLUbAZ39nUEsPuARhhdBmu5llEXQkm9B1AVOH LJjhdGscU5wZnqw+tdC2dGDM0ANb3gC7CjPMo4ME= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k3dpGq9cJ1yj for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 19:20:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 19:20:33 +0100 (CET) Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A0C2861A34; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:20:32 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca A0C2861A34 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B31E43A0D45 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:20:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:20:32 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Wouters To: "ipsec@ietf.org WG" Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: Subject: [IPsec] inconsistent RFC obsoletes/obsoleted reference X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 18:20:41 -0000 See: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7321 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8221 8221 states properly: Obsoletes: 7321 but 7321 is missing: Obsoleted by: 8221 Can someone fix that? Paul From nobody Tue Dec 19 01:50:58 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F1A12D88F for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 01:50:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.12 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X90yT0GPRwZt for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 01:50:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.acr.fi [212.16.101.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C329912421A for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 01:50:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from fireball.acr.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id vBJ9ongX015557 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:50:49 +0200 (EET) Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.acr.fi (8.15.2/8.14.8/Submit) id vBJ9onCe016782; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:50:49 +0200 (EET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <23096.57593.587994.122232@fireball.acr.fi> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:50:49 +0200 From: Tero Kivinen To: Paul Wouters Cc: "ipsec\@ietf.org WG" In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 25.1.1 (x86_64--netbsd) X-Edit-Time: 11 min X-Total-Time: 13 min Archived-At: Subject: [IPsec] inconsistent RFC obsoletes/obsoleted reference X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:50:56 -0000 Paul Wouters writes: > See: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7321 > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8221 See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7321/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8221/ and you can see that the information is already correct. > 8221 states properly: > > Obsoletes: 7321 This is in the RFC text itself and this is the proper place to indicate that this obsoleted something. > but 7321 is missing: > > Obsoleted by: 8221 The actual RFC7321 cannot include text that it will be obseleted as when it was published that was not known, and RFCs are not modified after they are published. The metadata header in the tools.ietf.org (the grey background block in the beginning) can inclulde this information, but as tools.ietf.org pages are not generated using the same database than what is used by the datatracker, they can use old cached information that is not up to date. It most likely uses the rfc-index file to get that information, but I do not know how often it pulls that version from the rfc editor and how often it will recreate the html version of the rfc (RFCs do not change so there is no point of generating the html version on the fly for every request, so it will generate it every now and then and use cached version then). > Can someone fix that? Most likely someone can, but there is nothing I can do for this, as fixing this most likely would require cleaning the cached entry for the rfc7321 from the tools site, and regenerate html version after all other cached information has already been updated. Most likely this will get fixed by itself after few weeks or months or so when the old cached data is replaced with new data. Proper place to complain these things might be the tools-discuss@ietf.org mailing list, but it is always better to check things in the datatracker.ietf.org first and see if this is tools.ietf.org related problem or whether there is real problem with the source data... -- kivinen@iki.fi From nobody Tue Dec 19 20:55:09 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C24012D7FB for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:55:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mxNZdIxrHdWi for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:55:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20E30120726 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:55:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3z1jBG43Tbz3DC; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 05:55:02 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1513745702; bh=Qz2Jy0sIbPT2WYQnEK6BwfszkBrLBCKVQA/LLKe9Gsk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=QCutZ5oiDuduIkeV1R2AF8uw91Tu0tpxN1GlH1WexPQpBY67uzOKLP2Lm1TDRIgHn sRN1vjNRGkf6fjLoodWbAugmpLuVsKe2Vz7mLzVw+nUUh+M7jx6nAC3b4PVGTsCzwK uwaIadSbrAK9nEHbSr8D6KW94hCA/hFuhNjIM5MU= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J8PE-gX64vba; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 05:55:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 05:54:59 +0100 (CET) Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5C83170A3FB; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 23:54:58 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 5C83170A3FB Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 416E243A0D56; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 23:54:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 23:54:58 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Wouters To: Tero Kivinen cc: "ipsec@ietf.org WG" In-Reply-To: <23096.57593.587994.122232@fireball.acr.fi> Message-ID: References: <23096.57593.587994.122232@fireball.acr.fi> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [IPsec] inconsistent RFC obsoletes/obsoleted reference X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 04:55:07 -0000 On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, Tero Kivinen wrote: > >> 8221 states properly: >> >> Obsoletes: 7321 > > This is in the RFC text itself and this is the proper place to > indicate that this obsoleted something. > >> but 7321 is missing: >> >> Obsoleted by: 8221 > > The actual RFC7321 cannot include text that it will be obseleted as > when it was published that was not known, and RFCs are not modified > after they are published. I was not talking about the RFC text, but about the navigational support of the datatracker based renderings of our RFCs. > The metadata header in the tools.ietf.org (the grey background block > in the beginning) can inclulde this information, but as tools.ietf.org > pages are not generated using the same database than what is used by > the datatracker, they can use old cached information that is not up to > date. > Most likely someone can, but there is nothing I can do for this, as > fixing this most likely would require cleaning the cached entry for > the rfc7321 from the tools site, and regenerate html version after all > other cached information has already been updated. > > Most likely this will get fixed by itself after few weeks or months or > so when the old cached data is replaced with new data. That is not my experience. I have seen this for drafts going back years and they only get fixed when I point it out directly to the tools person or sometimes when I poke this list. > Proper place to complain these things might be the > tools-discuss@ietf.org mailing list, but it is always better to check > things in the datatracker.ietf.org first and see if this is > tools.ietf.org related problem or whether there is real problem with > the source data... It would be good if someone could scrape the entire repository and check it for consistency. I'm pretty sure these artifacts are very common, and that bugs are still present. And it is more then esthetic. People assume the pages don't lie about what is a latest version or that a document is really not obsoleted by a new document when it doesn't say so. If anyone has no Christmas project, this could be a nice time killer :) Paul From nobody Thu Dec 21 08:00:30 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietf.org Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E716612895E; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:00:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: ipsec@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.68.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <151387202789.12803.7880827853902128607@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:00:27 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-01.txt X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:00:28 -0000 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 WG of the IETF. Title : Postquantum Preshared Keys for IKEv2 Authors : Scott Fluhrer David McGrew Panos Kampanakis Valery Smyslov Filename : draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-01.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2017-12-21 Abstract: The possibility of Quantum Computers pose a serious challenge to cryptography algorithms deployed widely today. IKEv2 is one example of a cryptosystem that could be broken; someone storing VPN communications today could decrypt them at a later time when a Quantum Computer is available. It is anticipated that IKEv2 will be extended to support quantum secure key exchange algorithms; however that is not likely to happen in the near term. To address this problem before then, this document describes an extension of IKEv2 to allow it to be resistant to a Quantum Computer, by using preshared keys. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-01 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 nobody Thu Dec 21 08:43:03 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5348126CD6 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:43:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hf7Hq3OhBdly for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:42:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB398126C25 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:42:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2881; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1513874579; x=1515084179; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=1o/NLMalf/hgZCZuFl05z4QZSekc76k1iUgCEWdLjSw=; b=U0oSYMjK9eDjzXN2uBhNy/Y9f2UL3xUKfUbxM2O+4P0DGay2e04VC1lg pKYnEM/6Vtm5TdFalBXy+uqP2Qqp8lih03JS9NPsCbGH/9K3RoeDiPbo1 sezlTmwOg7terYs6SaUeB6V/e4kKBt20KX3XTxvVWY69Cuny1txRsweX/ E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D0AAA54zta/5JdJa1bGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYM+ZnQnB44jjxGCAZcpghUKGAuFGAKESj8YAQEBAQEBAQEBax0?= =?us-ascii?q?LhSMBAQEEAQE4NBcEAgEIEQQBAR8JBycLFAkIAgQTCIojEKZsinABAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdg3+CEoFWhReDLwEBF4dSBaNIAod/jSWCIGWFMItOjSG?= =?us-ascii?q?JMQIRGQGBOgEfOYFPbxUYJIIpCYJQF4FneIkBAYEVAQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,436,1508803200"; d="scan'208";a="47779926" Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Dec 2017 16:42:48 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com (xch-rcd-009.cisco.com [173.37.102.19]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vBLGgm5T026535 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:42:48 GMT Received: from xch-aln-010.cisco.com (173.36.7.20) by XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com (173.37.102.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 10:42:48 -0600 Received: from xch-aln-010.cisco.com ([173.36.7.20]) by XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com ([173.36.7.20]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 10:42:47 -0600 From: "Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" To: "ipsec@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHTenTbqlF8X1QyS0GUls8SJp2J8qNN/yFw Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:42:47 +0000 Message-ID: <3fb0b8a5d6364e35b98429dff6615acc@XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com> References: <151387202789.12803.7880827853902128607@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <151387202789.12803.7880827853902128607@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [64.102.57.108] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-01.txt X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:43:02 -0000 This draft incorporates some minor text fixes, nits, small updates and PPK_= SUPPORT notification is changed to USE_PPK to better reflect its purpose.=20 It also includes two more important changes=20 - Clarified using PPK in case of EAP authentication. It follow the same rat= ional as IKE_AUTH in the last version of the draft. - prf is replaced with prf+ for the SK_d and SK_pi/r calculations. That is = done to accommodate potential user cases where the prf output size is not e= qual to the preferred key size.=20 We think this draft is ready for LC, after the two above changes are review= ed.=20 Panos -----Original Message----- From: IPsec [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ie= tf.org Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 11:00 AM To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ipsec@ietf.org Subject: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-01.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IP Security Maintenance and Extensions WG = of the IETF. Title : Postquantum Preshared Keys for IKEv2 Authors : Scott Fluhrer David McGrew Panos Kampanakis Valery Smyslov Filename : draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-01.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2017-12-21 Abstract: The possibility of Quantum Computers pose a serious challenge to cryptography algorithms deployed widely today. IKEv2 is one example of a cryptosystem that could be broken; someone storing VPN communications today could decrypt them at a later time when a Quantum Computer is available. It is anticipated that IKEv2 will be extended to support quantum secure key exchange algorithms; however that is not likely to happen in the near term. To address this problem before then, this document describes an extension of IKEv2 to allow it to be resistant to a Quantum Computer, by using preshared keys. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n 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/ _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec