Minimal Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2) Initiator Implementation
RFC 7815

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

Comment (2015-12-03)
No email
send info
Thank you for this well-written and much needed document.

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) Yes

Comment (2016-01-10)
No email
send info
I had a discuss ballot on this. I'd still like to see the algorithm-set
described here omit some of the lower security levels but I 
accept that this has had review and/or that changes to BCP-like
text really ought be done in other places first. Sorry, for being
slow with getting the discussion closed.

(Brian Haberman) Yes

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

Comment (2015-12-04)
No email
send info
[Update: I am convinced that the standards track vs informational question was a red-herring, and therefore cleared the DISCUSS. I do still think that the current approach risks effectively forking the protocol. But I think I've made my point and leave it to the respective parties to do the Right Thing, whatever they see that to be.]

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.

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2015-12-03)
No email
send info
I agree with Ben's question about copying text from a normative reference without clearly tagging it. Clear tagging seems like a good idea.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Comment (2015-11-30)
No email
send info
Tim Wicinksi performed the opsdir review.

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2015-12-02)
No email
send info
I agree with Ben's DISCUSS ballot.  It seems to me that this document is an Applicability Statement for 7296.

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2015-12-02)
No email
send info
Nit that I'm sure the RFC editor would have caught:
Last paragraph at the bottom of Page 4, so is repeated:
"Minimal implementations only need to support the role of initiator,
   so so it"

I'm fine with this being informational since it just describes a proof of concept implementation specific to lwig use cases of an existing standards track RFC.  It does explicitly state that the referenced RFC is normative and any updates to that RFC would likely not apply to this one unless an updated POC is done and that might mean a new draft (I suspect).

Alvaro Retana No Objection