Subject: [IPsec] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-17: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 18:49:40 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-17: Yes

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-rfc4307bis/

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

(oops, meant to ballot "yes". Fixed now.)

Section 2.1, 2nd to last paragraph says that ENCR_3DES has been
downgraded to SHOULD NOT. But both the table in this section, and the
change table later in the draft say MAY.

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 12:59:26 -0400 (EDT)

> change table later in the draft say MAY.

Oops, that's a big bug this late in the game!!

We will have to do another update with the table fixed. I do believe
the text is correct and 3DES is classified as SHOULD NOT.

Paul

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:58:44 -0400

Please excuse typos, sent from handheld device 

> On Mar 16, 2017, at 12:59 PM, Paul Wouters <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Right, but it's an inconsistency in the document. Which of the 3 were normative?  I'm just on a phone at the moment or I'd look.

I'm just asking from a process standpoint.

Thank you,
Kathleen