Hi all,
as RFC5996 is revised, I suggest to make some editorial changes
to improve its clarity and to fix some small issues that I found.
1. Section 1.6 Requirements Terminology is placed far from the begining
of the document and all the requirements words, along with terms
from RFC4301 etc. are used before they are formally introduced.
I don't think it is appropriate for standards track document.
I suggest to move this section before Introduction.
2. Page 5:
"IKEv2 was a change to the IKE protocol that was not backward
compatible. In contrast, the current document not only provides a
clarification of IKEv2, but makes minimum changes to the IKE
protocol."
For me this piece sounds strange. I think it should look like:
"IKEv2 was a change to the IKE protocol that was not backward
compatible. In contrast, the current document only provides a
clarification of IKEv2, and makes minimum changes to the IKEv2
protocol."
3. Page 10.
"HDR contains the Security Parameter Indexes (SPIs), version numbers,
and flags of various sorts."
Not mentioned Message ID, Exchange Type (and Next Payload and length,
but they are not very important here). I suggest to change:
"HDR contains the Security Parameter Indexes (SPIs), version numbers,
Type of Exchange, Message ID and flags of various sorts."
4. Page 11.
"At this point in the negotiation, each party can generate SKEYSEED,
from which all keys are derived for that IKE SA."
Term SKEYSEED pops up from nowhere. No reference is gived and
even no word is explained what is it all about. First-time readers will
definitely be puzzled. I suggest to change:
"At this point in the negotiation, each party can generate a quantity
called SKEYSEED (see section 2.14), from which all keys are derived
for that IKE SA."
5. Page 14, 15 and 16
"The responder replies (using the same Message ID to respond) with the
accepted offer in an SA payload, and a Diffie-Hellman value in the
KEr payload if KEi was included in the request and the selected
cryptographic suite includes that group."
"The responder replies (using the same Message ID to respond) with the
accepted offer in an SA payload, and a Diffie-Hellman value in the
KEr payload if the selected cryptographic suite includes that group."
"The responder replies (using the same Message ID to respond) with the
accepted offer in an SA payload, and a Diffie-Hellman value in the
KEr payload if KEi was included in the request and the selected
cryptographic suite includes that group."
All three sentencies look like they were copy-pasted and all three
lacks mention Nonce Payload. I think it should be explicitely
mentioned here, as it was mentioned in descriptions of Initiator's message,
above each of this sentencies.
And I also think that words in parentheses here are superfluous,
as this requirement is comon for all exchanges, not only for
CREATE_CHILD_SA,
and stated several times in the document. So, I suggest to change:
"The responder replies with the accepted offer in an SA payload,
nonce in the Nr payload and a Diffie-Hellman value in the
KEr payload if KEi was included in the request and the selected
cryptographic suite includes that group."
"The responder replies with the accepted offer in an SA payload,
nonce in the Nr payload and a Diffie-Hellman value in the
KEr payload if the selected cryptographic suite includes that group."
"The responder replies with the accepted offer in an SA payload,
nonce in the Nr payload and a Diffie-Hellman value in the
KEr payload if KEi was included in the request and the selected
cryptographic suite includes that group."
6. Page 19.
"The recipient of this notification cannot tell
whether the SPI is for AH or ESP, but this is not important because
the SPIs are supposed to be different for the two."
Why "is supposed to be different"? RFC4301 clearly states:
"For a unicast SA, the SPI can be used by itself to specify an SA, or it
may be
used in conjunction with the IPsec protocol type."
So I suggest to change as follows:
"The recipient of this notification cannot tell
whether the SPI is for AH or ESP, but this is not important because
in many cases the SPIs will be different for the two."
And some words should be added for the case when SPIs are not
different for AH and ESP. I have no good suggestion here.
7. Page 31.
Phrase "(see Section 2.6)" actually references the same section. It should
either
be removed or corrected.
8. Page 31.
"However, if the responder sends a non-zero
responder SPI, the initiator should not reject the response for only
that reason."
Should here "should not" be "SHOULD NOT"?
9. Page 49.
"There are two types of EAP authentication (described in
Section 2.16), and each type uses different values in the AUTH
computations shown above. If the EAP method is key-generating,
substitute master session key (MSK) for the shared secret in the
computation. For non-key-generating methods, substitute SK_pi and
SK_pr, respectively, for the shared secret in the two AUTH
computations."
Isn't this para superfluous here? Its content belongs to EAP authentication
and in fact it is described in more details two pages below.
10. Page 51.
"As described in Section 2.2, when EAP is used, each pair of IKE SA
initial setup messages will have their message numbers incremented;
the first pair of AUTH messages will have an ID of 1, the second will
be 2, and so on."
Should be:
"As described in Section 2.2, when EAP is used, each pair of IKE SA
initial setup messages will have their message numbers incremented;
the first pair of IKE_AUTH messages will have an ID of 1, the second will
be 2, and so on."
11. Page 52:
"A single CHILD_SA negotiation may result in multiple Security
Associations."
Should be:
"A single CREATE_CHILD_SA negotiation may result in multiple Security
Associations."
That's all for now.
Valery.
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
