Hi, I want to check one point. At the last paragraph in Section 2.5, there is a mention of refering the figures in Section 2. Does it mean we should refer all fighres in Section 2? Or does it mistake section 2 for section 1?
--------- 2.5. Version Numbers and Forward Compatibility /snip/ Although new payload types may be added in the future and may appear interleaved with the fields defined in this specification, implementations SHOULD send the payloads defined in this specification in the order shown in the figures in Section 2; implementations MUST NOT reject as invalid a message with those payloads in any other order. --------- Regards, Toshihiko Tamura > This is to begin a 4 week working group last call for > draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2bis-06. The target status for this document is > Proposed Standard, obsoleting RFC 4306 and RFC 4718. > > Please send your comments to the ipsec list by Jan. 5, 2010, as follow-ups to > this message. > > This is a large document, and arguably the most important document this WG is > entrusted with. The LC period is longer than usual but will include vacation > time for most of us. Nevertheless, please make an effort to review the entire > document, or at least large portions of it. Feel free to post multiple > partial reviews. > > In this particular case, we are starting the review with a few open > issues<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ipsecme/trac/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&component=draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2bis>. > We will make an effort to close them during the WG LC period. > > As a reminder regarding the document's scope (and our constraints while > reviewing it), I will quote from my mail of Aug. 2008: > > General: The goal of the IKEv2 bis document is to clarify the protocol. The > goal is not to extend it. Specifically: > > > * The document will combine RFC 4306 (IKEv2) and RFC 4718 (IKEv2 > clarifications), but no other RFCs. > * The document will add clarifications based on the community's deployment > experience. > * It is OK to correct minor technical errors and contradictions in the source > documents. Any such corrections will be pointed out explicitly - preferably > in an appendix (so that people using the old documents can scan it to > discover problem areas). > * The document will not add any "nice to have" extensions, no matter how much > technical sense they make. > > Please clearly indicate the position of any issue in the Internet Draft, and > if possible provide alternative text. Please also indicate the nature or > severity of the error or correction, e.g. major technical, minor technical, > nit, so that we can quickly judge the extent of problems with the document. > > The document can be accessed here: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2bis-06 > > Thanks, > Yaron _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
