Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-multi-sa-performance-08: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-multi-sa-performance/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- My comments are split between COMMENTs and NITs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From an operational perspective, the shepherd write-up brought up the question of how this draft would be operationalized. In other words, is there an augment of the existing YANG model planned that would update the model to add the ability to configure multiple SAs? If not, how does a user specify their interest in enabling this feature? No reference entries found for these items, which were mentioned in the text: [TBD2] and [TBD1]. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. Reference [RFC6982] to RFC6982, which was obsoleted by RFC7942 (this may be on purpose). Section 1.2, paragraph 1 > n initial IKEv2 exchange is used to setup an IKE SA and the initial Child SA. > ^^^^^ The verb "set up" is spelled as two words. The noun "setup" is spelled as one. Section 2, paragraph 1 > he Exchange negotiating the Child SA (eg IKE_AUTH or CREATE_CHILD_SA). If thi > ^^ The abbreviation "e.g." (= for example) requires two periods. Section 4, paragraph 2 > hild SAs. If per-CPU packet trigger (eg SADB_ACQUIRE) messages are implemente > ^^ The abbreviation "e.g." (= for example) requires two periods. Section 4, paragraph 3 > ed on the trigger TSi entry, an implementations can select the most optimal t > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The plural noun "implementations" cannot be used with the article "an". Did you mean "an implementation" or "implementations"? Section 5.1, paragraph 5 > identifier in their packet trigger (eg SADB_ACQUIRE) message from the SPD t > ^^ The abbreviation "e.g." (= for example) requires two periods. Section 6, paragraph 1 > lthough having a very large number (eg hundreds or thousands) of SAs may slo > ^^ The abbreviation "e.g." (= for example) requires two periods. Section 6, paragraph 2 > he inbound SA and outbound SA independently from each other. It is likely tha > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The usual collocation for "independently" is "of", not "from". Did you mean "independently of"? Section 6, paragraph 4 > elonging to a specific resource. The notify data SHOULD NOT be an identifier > ^^^^^^^^^^ The verb "notify" does not usually follow articles like "The". Check that "notify" is spelled correctly; using "notify" as a noun may be non-standard. Section 8, paragraph 4 > the ESP flow, to a specific Q or CPU e.g ethtool ntuple configuration. The SP > ^^^ The abbreviation "e.g." (= for example) requires two periods. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
