In your previous mail you wrote: > 1. Isn't the notion of "traffic selector" specific to IKEv2? If so, > should we explicitly say IKEv2 in the example? > => the term is but not the notion. In fact the notion is from the > architecture (RFC 2401) when SPD (Security Policy Database) entries > are described. IMHO this is a good example of what the proper terminology > can give, so why sulk it? I don't mind to use the term "traffic selector", but I'm wondering if it might be better to use IKEv2. => as the issue is generic we can use IKE or IKEv1 or IKEv2. I prefer IKE because it will cover both IKEv1 and IKEv2 in minds.
> => I don't know. Of course this is not ambiguous for me... > Perhaps it is time to get an advice from our security area director? Perhaps, but I don't know if we can expect an answer considering the silence so far... => we have to wait for an answer in any case (:-)... Thanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: for me as the editor you are the master for style details. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
