ECP Groups For IKE and IKEv2
draft-ietf-ipsec-ike-ecp-groups-03

Idnits (use the latest revision from the web) gives a number of
complaints:

  * The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para 1 IPR Disclosure
    Acknowledgement. 

    RFC 3979 Section 5 paragraph 1 text:
    "The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
    Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
    pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
    this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
    might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
    made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
    on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
    found in BCP 78 and BCP 79."

  * The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para 2 IPR Disclosure
    Acknowledgement. 

    RFC 3979 Section 5 paragraph 2 text:
    "Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
    assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
    attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
    such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
    specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
    http://www.ietf.org/ipr."

  * The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para 3 IPR Disclosure
    Invitation. 

    RFC 3979 Section 5 paragraph 3 text:
    "The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
    copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
    rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
    this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
    ietf-ipr@ietf.org."


  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
  - It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form
    feeds but 14 pages

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  - The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not
    match the current year
  - The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even
    if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. 

    RFC 2119 paragraph 2 text:
    "The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
    document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119."


  Experimental warnings:
  - Unused Reference: [RFC-3526] is defined on line 592, but not referenced
	'  [RFC-3526] T. Kivinen and M. Kojo, More Modular Exponential  MODP'