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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
