All good, Valery, and thanks for the quick response. Barry
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 4:42 AM Valery Smyslov <s...@elvis.ru> wrote: > > 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
