Subject: [IPsec] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 17:39:40 -0800

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate-09: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

A few editorial items:

** Section 1.  Editorial.  s/If size of/If the size of/

** Section 1.  Editorial.  Per “… that may interfere badly with some network
devices”, can something more precise than “interfere badly” be used? Perhaps:

OLD:
That may interfere badly with some network devices

NEW
Which has been shown to cause operational challenge in certain network
configurations and devices.

** Section 3.3.2.  Editorial.  Per “… because peers generally are unaware in
which form other side has received them”, there is a missing word here.

** Section 3.3.2. Editorial. s/After n-th exchange/After the n-th exchange/

**Section 3.3.2. Editorial.
OLD
The IntAuth_[i/r]*A chunk lasts from ...

NEW
The IntAuth [i/r]*A chunk consists of the sequence of octets from ...

** Section 8.  Typo. s/regadless/regardless/

---

From: Valery Smyslov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 09:09:06 +0300

Hi Roman,

thank you for your comments.

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

Fixed.

> configurations and devices.

Changed to the suggested text.

> which form other side has received them”, there is a missing word here.

I tried to rephrase this part:

"... because implementations are generally unaware in which form these messages are received by peers."

Is it better or still requires polishing?

> ** Section 3.3.2. Editorial. s/After n-th exchange/After the n-th exchange/

Fixed.

> The IntAuth [i/r]*A chunk consists of the sequence of octets from ...

Done (I have a feeling that this sentence contains too many words "octet",
but let RFC Editor think about this).

> ** Section 8.  Typo. s/regadless/regardless/

Typo, fixed.

Thank you!

Regards,
Valery.