Hi Tero,

thank you for the review. See inline below.

> I would need author to reply this email and express whether there is
> any IPRs related to this draft known by the authors.

I confirm that I'm not aware of any IPR related to this draft.

> --
> 
> In section 3.1 the draft says:
> 
>                       Instead, the initiator MAY either link the
>    Announcements to the CAs received in the IKE_SA_INIT response, or MAY
>    ignore the SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS notification entirely.
> 
> but instead of ignoring the SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS notification
> entirely, it could simply ignore the cert linking. If it ignores the
> whole SUPPORTED_AUTH_METHODS it might pick completely unusable method,
> so instead it should use that to pick suitable methods, even when it
> can't link them to specific trust anchors.

Makes sense. Changed to:

   Instead, the initiator MAY either link the
   Announcements to the CAs received in the IKE_SA_INIT response, or MAY
   ignore the Announcements containing links to CAs.

> --
> 
> In section 3.2 the draft says:
> 
>                 The meaning of the remaining octets of the blob, if
>    any, depends on the authentication method and is defined below.
> 
> I think it would be simply bettter to say:
> 
>                 The meaning of the remaining octets of the blob, if
>    any, depends on the authentication method.
> 
> as in the future some of those authentication methods might be defined
> in other documents and not below...

OK, good point.

> --
> 
> As this document adds two new variations of the basic IKEv2
> IKE_SA_INIT / (IKE_INTERMEDIATE) / IKE_AUTH, it would be really good
> to have IKEv2 RFC 7296 Appendix C style exchange summaries. Please add
> those.

Added.

> --
> 
> I-D nits complain :
> 
> == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
>      draft-ounsworth-pq-composite-sigs-08
> 
> so fix that also at the same time.

Oh, this is fixed automatically when a new version is published :-)

Regards,
Valery.

> --
> [email protected]

_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

Reply via email to