Subject: [Mip6] [issue91] Comments from Francis

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:25:17 +0000

..
   (in general the 7.3 is a bit loose about what kind of SAs we talk about)
 - 7.3 page 20 first paragraph: to create the security associations ->
   to create the IPsec security...
   (second case of the problem)
 - 7.3 page 20: the IDi payload must correspond -> MUST ?
 - 7.3 page 20: in the iPAddress -> in an iPAddress
   (the SubjectAltName extension is a sequence of general names)
 - 8 page 21: there are more than 4 exchanges in general, I proposed to
   add 3 dots between second and third exchanges.
 - 8 page 21 last paragraph: to derive a shared key from EAP is RECOMMENDED
   because it is the way to verify the EAP and IKE peers are the same!
   If we keep the current wording someone shall loudly complain, IMHO
   the best is the change "Same EAP" into "Recommended EAP" with a word
   or two to explain the context of the recommendation, for instance "used
   within IKE" ?
 - 13.2 page 25 [12] (again!): Sugimoto-san has two co-authors...

----------
category: Technical
draft: draft-ietf-mip6-ikev2-ipsec
messages: 317
nosy: vijay
priority: Must fix
status: Pending
title: Comments from Francis

_________________________________________________
Mip6 issue tracker <[email-masked]>
<http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/mip6/issue90>
_________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6