Subject: [IPsec] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 15:47:56 -0800

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: 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.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2/

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

Thanks for the work done on this protocol extension. I only have two
relatively minor comments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§5.1:

>  It is anticipated
>  that later standards will extend this technique to allow dynamically
>  changing PPK values.

It's likely that future specifications will extend the technique even before
becoming standards. Consider changing "standards" to "specifications."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§5.1:

>     Not all implementations are
>     able to configure arbitrary octet strings; to improve the
>     potential interoperability, it is recommended that, in the
>     PPK_ID_FIXED case, both the PPK and the PPK_ID strings be limited
>     to the base64 character set, namely the 64 characters 0-9, A-Z,
>     a-z, + and /.

This is a little confusing, since the base64 character set has 65 characters
in it (the 64 cited, plus '='). If the omission of '=' is intentional,
please add a short statement indicating so -- otherwise, implementors may
assume that its omission is unintentional and include it in their IDs. To
the extent that the problem describes arises in the field, this has the
potential to cause cause similar issues.

---

From: Valery Smyslov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 10:15:37 +0300

Hi Adam,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2/

OK, makes sense.

The omission was unintentional, we'll add '=' to the list of characters.

Thank you,
Valery.