In your previous mail you wrote: > the document is very unpleasant to read That would have to be regarded as a comment which is not actionable ;-) => if you find a magical way to improve the wording it should be very great (as a not native English writer I understand the issue but the first intent of a RFC is to be read...).
> too many authors We intend to leave the set of authors as is, and intend to remove the notation "(editor)". In my opinion, this is not an appropriate topic to be mentioned by a gen-art reviewer. => this was not directed against you but: - automatic checking tools will complain - it is an IESG policy and I am afraid the IESG enforces its policies. BTW a gen-art review is only an independent review so the IESG does what it'd like with it, including ignore or overrule. > (the only technical issue) there is no more a "main mode" in IKEv2. BTW > the text seems to mandate preshared keys when IMHO it requires only > automatical SA establishment (better than key distribution). There have been a couple of security reviews, and this issue did not come up, => this just proves another review is always a good thing (:-). so I'm not sure what to make of this comment. => for the main mode you should remove it. cf RFC 4306, Appendix A, 2: 2) To simplify IKE by replacing the eight different initial exchanges with a single four-message exchange For the second part, if the "with the preshared keys" came with the "in main mode" the best and simplest is to remove the end of the sentence, i.e.: means of IKEv2 [RFC4306], operating in main mode with preshared keys. -> means of IKEv2 [RFC4306]. Regards francis.dup...@fdupont.fr _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
