Subject: [IPsec] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-ipsecme-11-01: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 12:34:30 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-ipsecme-11-01: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ipsecme/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Substantive comments:

(1) I don't see the value in having an expiration date in a WG charter because
it's not enforced in practice. The previous version of this charter said the WG
would close if the charter wasn't updated by Dec 2017, but the WG continued to
exist without the charter being updated. This charter seems tightly scoped
enough to just get the work done according to the milestone dates or close
sooner if people lose interest.

(2) I think it might be worth a few words to state the reason why the goal was
for the new IKEv2 mode to have the same quantum resistant properties as existed
in IKEv1, rather than better/fuller quantum resistance.

Nits:

Based on the number of grammar and wording errors I found in this charter, I
would strongly suggest doing a clean-up pass to make sure all of the text reads
properly. Here is what I found:

(1)
s/to have similar quantum resistant properties than IKEv1 had/to have similar
quantum resistant properties that IKEv1 had/

(2)
s/in form of counter/in the form of a counter/

(3)
I can't parse this sentence:

"A growing number of use cases for constrained network - but not
limited to - have shown interest in reducing ESP (resp. IKEv2)
overhead by compressing ESP (resp IKEv2) fields."

(4)
OLD
Currently IKE peers have no explicit way
to indicate each other which signature format(s) the support, that
leads to ineroperability problems.

NEW
Currently IKE peers have no explicit way
to indicate to each other which signature format(s) they support. That
leads to ineroperability problems.

(5) The milestones need to be updated. Some of the dates and draft names are
wrong.