[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: WG Last call: draft-jenkins-ipsec-rekeying-06.txt
Ted,
Thanks for the comments; I'll update the document by putting section 4.5 in
its own section with some words to state that the proposal is incomplete and
needs magic numbers.
I'll hold off on other changes for a bit.
There is one potential issue with the references, in that the document
refers to <draft-ietf-ipsec-ike-01.txt> which I believe has expired and has
not been replaced. Do I need to do something with that?
Thanks,
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theodore Ts'o [mailto:tytso@mit.edu]
> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 11:03 PM
> To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> Subject: Re: WG Last call: draft-jenkins-ipsec-rekeying-06.txt
>
>
>
> [ With my wg chair hat off ]
>
> While I was reviewing this document for the last call, it
> struck me that
> while most if it is supposed reflect implementation discussions, the
> last section, "4.5 Commit bit replacement", probably should be moved
> into an appendix, and much more clearly labelled as a proposal for a
> future revision of the ipsec protocols.
>
> Right now, it could quite easily be confused as being something
> implementors should implement, although without any assigned
> numbers or
> bits'n'bytes details, most implementors wouldn't get very far. The
> danger is that some implementor may invent the
> implementational details
> and claim conformance to the informational RFC, and that could harm
> interoperability. So this text needs to be explicitly set
> off from the
> rest of the discussion somehow.
>
> - Ted
>
Follow-Ups: