Hi David,
Thanks for detecting this glitch. I don't think this is worth an
erratum, given that we are republishing the document.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 05/19/2014 05:09 AM, Black, David wrote:
In looking for something else, I ran across a minor thinko in the
rfc5996bis draft that was inherited from RFC 5996.
Section 3.14, Encrypted Payload, 4th paragraph:
When an authenticated encryption algorithm is used to protect the IKE
SA, the construction of the Encrypted payload is different than what
is described here. See [AEAD] for more information on authenticated
encryption algorithms and their use in ESP.
[AEAD] is a reference to RFC 5282, "Using Authenticated Encryption
Algorithms with the Encrypted Payload of the Internet Key Exchange
version 2 (IKEv2) Protocol."
Hence, a change is in order at the end of the paragraph:
"ESP" -> "IKEv2"
In the unlikely event that the IESG finds nothing else to change in
the draft :-), an RFC Editor Note ought to suffice to handle this.
Should I also file an erratum against RFC 5996?
Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748
+1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
david.bl...@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
