Hi Brian, Madison, Deb, thank you for the review of the proposed changes, please see inline (I trimmed the message to keep only parts that need my response).
> If I haven’t commented on a change below, I’m fine with it. Great! > I will be away from my email for a few days but will respond ASAP if there > are further questions for me. No problem. > > Tables 2, 7, 9, and 10 have some notes below. > > I think that we can also use <aside> for these notes. > > Brian, your opinion? > > I didn’t suggest Table 2 and Table 7 earlier because they are tightly > associated with the table. That is, the notes > are linked to the table through the use of asterisks and could be considered > explicitly associated with the table. In > Tables 9 and 10 the Notes column explicitly refers to the numbered Notes so > again they do seem to be explicitly > associated with the table rather than asides. This is a good point. My proposal was mostly inspired by the use of <aside> in RFC 9800, where it is used below some figures (actually, representing pseudocode), thus I thought it is appropriate for these tables too. But you are right that in these cases the notes are not standalone, thus it is better to not highlight them as such. > But I don't object to these becoming <aside> elements if you still prefer. I agree with you and withdraw my suggestion. > > 62) Section 4.4.2 > > > > CURRENT: > > The GSA policy substructure contains parameters for the SA that are > > used with this group. > > > > NEW: > > The GSA policy substructure contains parameters for the SA that is > > used with this group. > > > > Rationale: it is SA that used with this group, and parameters are > > for this SA. > > You’ve moved to a singular verb rather than a plural to highlight > that there is a single SA. I might suggest wording that might flow a bit > better. > I believe that It still refers to a single SA, but because the GSA Policy > Substructure does contain a plurality of parameters that the word > “are” is appropriate. > > NEW > The GSA policy substructure contains SA parameters that are > used with this group. Perhaps we can reword this sentence a bit to eliminate any ambiguity: How about: NEW The GSA policy substructure contains a set of parameters for a single SA inside the group. > I expect Madison can guide us to the most optimal wording here. Sure. Thank you! Regards, Valery. > >> Updated files: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838.txt > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838.pdf > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838.xml > >> > >> Updated diff files: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838-diff.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838-auth48diff.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > >> side) > >> > >> Thank you! > >> > >> Madison Church > >> RFC Production Center > >> > >>> Everything else looks fine to me. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Brian > >>> > >>>> > >>>>>> 40) Not all new IANA registries added to > >>>>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/ikev2- > >> parameters.xhtml > >>>>>> are properly filled in. In particular, the "Reserved for Private Use" > >>>>>> ranges in the "GSA Attributes", > >>>>>> the "Group-wide Policy Attributes" and the "Member Key Bag Attributes" > >>>>>> registries do not > >>>>>> reference to this document (while the "Group Key Bag Attributes" > >>>>>> registry does). > >>>> > >>>> 4) Thank you for pointing this out! We will ask IANA to update these > >>>> registries. We will also ask them to > correct > >> the "Unassigned" range in Table 13 (as mentioned in mail from 9/24). > >>>> > >>>>>> I also have a proposal. The draft references > >>>>>> draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-qr-alt-10, > >>>>>> which is currently in the RFC Editor queue in the state "AUTH48". > >>>>>> While it is only informatively referenced, I think that it would be > >>>>>> better if it is referenced > >>>>>> as RFC and not as I-D. Can you please make this possible (I think it > >>>>>> would require adding > >>>>>> draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-qr-alt-10 to C532 cluster). > >>>> > >>>> 5) Understood! As of right now, the document is cited as > >>>> [IPSEC-IKEV2-QR-ALT] in the text. Would you like > to > >> update to use [RFC9867]? > >>>> > >>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838.txt > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838.pdf > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838.html > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838.xml > >>>> > >>>> Diff files: > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838-diff.html > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838-auth48diff.html > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > >>>> side) > >>>> > >>>> For the AUTH48 status page, please see: > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9838. > >>>> > >>>> Thank you! > >>>> > >>>> Madison Church > >>>> RFC Editor > >>>> > >>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>> Valery. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thank you. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Madison Church and Karen Moore > >>>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sep 11, 2025, at 7:14 PM, RFC Editor via auth48archive > >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT***** > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Updated 2025/09/11 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> RFC Author(s): > >>>>>>> -------------- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > >>>>>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > >>>>>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > >>>>>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > >>>>>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > >>>>>>> your approval. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Planning your review > >>>>>>> --------------------- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please review the following aspects of your document: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * RFC Editor questions > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > >>>>>>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > >>>>>>> follows: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> <!-- [rfced] ... --> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * Changes submitted by coauthors > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > >>>>>>> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > >>>>>>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * Content > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > >>>>>>> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > >>>>>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > >>>>>>> - contact information > >>>>>>> - references > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * Copyright notices and legends > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > >>>>>>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > >>>>>>> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * Semantic markup > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > >>>>>>> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > >>>>>>> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > >>>>>>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * Formatted output > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > >>>>>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > >>>>>>> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > >>>>>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Submitting changes > >>>>>>> ------------------ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > >>>>>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > >>>>>>> include: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * your coauthors > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * [email protected] (the RPC team) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > >>>>>>> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > >>>>>>> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list > >>>>>>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > >>>>>>> list: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * More info: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * The archive itself: > >>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > >>>>>>> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive > >>>>>>> matter). > >>>>>>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > >>>>>>> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > >>>>>>> [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and > >>>>>>> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> An update to the provided XML file > >>>>>>> — OR — > >>>>>>> An explicit list of changes in this format > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Section # (or indicate Global) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> OLD: > >>>>>>> old text > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> NEW: > >>>>>>> new text > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > >>>>>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that > >>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of > >>>>>>> text, > >>>>>>> and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be > >>>>>>> found in > >>>>>>> the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream > >>>>>>> manager. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Approving for publication > >>>>>>> -------------------------- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email > >>>>>>> stating > >>>>>>> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, > >>>>>>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Files > >>>>>>> ----- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The files are available here: > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838.xml > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838.pdf > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838.txt > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Diff file of the text: > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838-diff.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Diff of the XML: > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9838-xmldiff1.html > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Tracking progress > >>>>>>> ----------------- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9838 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> RFC Editor > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -------------------------------------- > >>>>>>> RFC9838 (draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ikev2-23) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Title : Group Key Management using IKEv2 > >>>>>>> Author(s) : V. Smyslov, B. Weis > >>>>>>> WG Chair(s) : Yoav Nir, Tero Kivinen > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > >>> > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
