Subject: [Lwip] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-lwig-ikev2-minimal-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 14:36:32 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lwig-ikev2-minimal-05: Discuss

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-lwig-ikev2-minimal/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Apologies for changing to DISCUSS after my initial NO OBJECTION position,
but I just realized an implication to my comment about copying the IKEv2
text:

The shepherd's write up says "It is the proper type of RFC because the
document describes implementation recommendations for a proposed standard
and is not a proposed standard in itself.". But this document does not
merely make recommendations; it claims to stand alone as a full
specification of everything needed  for a minimal implementation that
works with IKEv2.  I'd like to discuss why this should not be standards
track, as it's currently written.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I question the choice of copying IKEv2 text forward into this document,
at least without clearly marking (and citing) the copied text. What
happens if 7296 gets updated or obsoleted? It seems like that would
effectively fork the protocol. And since this draft does not seem to
distinguish copied text from new text, I wonder if the other authors of
7296 should be considered authors of this document.

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 13:28:11 -0500

Hi,

My personnal opinion is that the copied text in this document is useful for
the understanding of how the minimal IKEv2 works. It also makes the
document easier to read and reduces the number of jumps from the IKEv2 spec
and the minimal implementation doc.
The counter part is that changes of IKEv2 may impact the optimizations
described in the minimal implementation document. Although I understand
this issue, I do not think this is an important issue here. The minimal
document clearly mentions the IKEv2 document it refers too. In addition,
changes to IKEv2 at that state are likely to result in IKEv3.

BR,
Daniel

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 4 Dec 2015, at 7:36, Robert Cragie wrote:
>
> As shepherd, I agree with what Jari says and stand by my comment that
>> Informational is the right intended status. FWIW, I did raise the issue of
>> copying text with Tero and was satisfied that it was an editorial choice
>> to
>> do it that way.
>>
>
> Noted, and thanks for weighing in. Please see my most recent comments on
> this to Jari and Tero.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lwip mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
>