Subject: [IPsec] Some comments to the draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-01.txt

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 19:34:46 +0200

While approving the IANA expert request for this document I noticed
some things that might require some fixes to the draft:

--

In section 1.1 (which will be removed) there is typo in PPK_SUUPORT.

--

In section 3 it would be better to use the same format than what is
used in the RFC7296 when using notify payloads with data in it, i.e.
replace

    N(PPK_IDENTITY)(PPK_ID)

with

    N(PPK_IDENTITY, PPK_ID)

(see example use in RFC7296 section 2.8.1 or RFC5685).

--

In section 4 there is text saying:

   If the responder has not been upgraded and properly configured,
   they will both realize it, and in that case, the link will be
   quantum secure.

I think there is something wrong with that. If the responder is not
upgraded, then link will not be quantum safe. Same if it is not
properly configured. I think it is trying to say that "If the
responder has been upgraded and ..."

--

In appendix A there is text saying:

    By limiting our changes to notifications, and translating the
    nonces, it is hoped that this would be implementable, even on
    systems that perform much of the IKEv2 processing is in hardware.

I think the text "translating the nonces" is leftover from old design
and should be changed to reflect the fact that this now changes the
SK_d, SK_pi and SK_pr.

-- 
[email-masked]

---

From: "Valery Smyslov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:41:30 +0300

Hi Tero,

thank you for the found typos and leftovers. We'll fix them in the next version
(there are also a couple clarifications that we want to add to the document).

Regards,
Valery.

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