Hi Barry, > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Yes, an interesting document, and thanks for that. A few editorial > comments: > > — Section 1 — > > to be quantum resistant, that is, invulnerable to an attacker with a > quantum computer. > > “Invulnerable” isn’t the same as “not vulnerable”: it has a stronger > connotation. You should probably use “not vulnerable” or “resistant” > instead.
OK, thanks. > By bringing post- > quantum security to IKEv2, this note removes the need to use > > Make it “this document”, please. OK. > This document does not replace the > authentication checks that the protocol does; instead, it is done as > a parallel check. > > What’s the antecedent to “it”? Should “it is” instead be “they are”? I think it was meant that using PPK doesn't directly influence peer authentication in IKEv2, but I agree that the wording is not clear enough. It's probably better to rephrase it: This document does not replace the authentication checks that the protocol does; instead, they are strengthened by using an additional secret key. Is it better? > — Section 3 — > > when the initiator believes it has a mandatory to use PPK > > You need hyphens in “mandatory-to-use”. OK. THank you, Valery. > > — > > I also find it interesting that Alexey thought you needed to add a normative > reference for “ASCII”, bit not for “base64”. Personally, I think both are > sufficiently well known that you need neither. > _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec