I've read the draft and support its adoption.
A few comments:
1. Section 1.2 should use the new boilerplate for requirements language.
2. In Section 2,
If the responder declines and does
not include the USE_BEET_MODE notification in the response, the child
SA may be established without BEET mode enabled. If this is
unacceptable to the initiator, the initiator MUST delete the child
SA.
First, the "child SA" should be "Child SA".
Second, I think the "may" here isn't appropriate. Using "may" can result in
different processing in two peers, what if the initiator doesn't create the
Child SA but the responder does. Combining with the last sentence, I think the
processing here is that both sides need to create this Child SA without BEET
mode enabled.
Regards & Thanks！
Wei PAN (潘伟)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tero Kivinen <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 10:53 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [IPsec] WG Adoption call of
> draft-antony-ipsecme-iekv2-beet-mode
>
> This email starts two week working group adoption call for
> draft-antony-ipsecme-iekv2-beet-mode [1] document. If you are in favor
> of adoption this document as working group document, please reply to
> this email and say so. And especially if you have any objections for
> adopting this document as WG document, send those comments to the
> list too.
>
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-antony-ipsecme-iekv2-beet-mode/
> --
> [email protected]
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
