[I am now doing these editorial changes, and I will be sending separate emails for each of them, just so I can keep track of what is changed and where, and you can complain if I miss or misinterpret something (but do not complain about missing changes before I send email that I have processed all of the changes).]
Yaron Sheffer writes: > By the way, your correction #2 still does not do it IMHO. The sentence > refers to RFC 5996. So: > > "IKEv2 as stated in RFC 4306 was a change to the IKE protocol that was > not backward compatible. RFC 5996 revised RFC 4306 to provide a > clarification of IKEv2, making minimum changes to the IKEv2 protocol. > The current document slightly revises RFC 5996 to make it suitable for > progression to Internet Standard." Changed 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. A list of the significant differences between RFC 4306 and RFC 5996 is given in <xref target='sect-1.7'/> and differences between RFC 5996 and this document is given in <xref target='sect-1.8' />.</t> to: IKEv2 as stated in RFC 4306 was a change to the IKE protocol that was not backward compatible. RFC 5996 revised RFC 4306 to provide a clarification of IKEv2, making minimum changes to the IKEv2 protocol. The current document slightly revises RFC 5996 to make it suitable for progression to Internet Standard. A list of the significant differences between RFC 4306 and RFC 5996 is given in <xref target='sect-1.7'/> and differences between RFC 5996 and this document is given in <xref target='sect-1.8' />.</t> -- kivi...@iki.fi _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec