A Quick Crash Detection Method for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKE)
draft-ietf-ipsecme-failure-detection-08

[Ballot discuss]
This is a very good specification, and I would have voted Yes if it weren't for one technical issue:

I do not understand how Section 5.2 mechanism:

        TOKEN_SECRET_DATA = HASH(QCD_SECRET | SPI-I | SPI-R | IPaddr-T)

works in an implementation that supports multihoming (e.g., RFC 4555). Can you clarify?
I would expect that the document at least has to be clearer about this, or perhaps the
Section 5.2 mechanism needs to be changed or removed to accommodate for
multihoming.

[Ballot comment]
1. An abbreviation sub-section would have been very useful

2.  Section 9.1 "QCD Token Generation and Handling", first paragraph, second sentence:

Replace 'she' with 'they'

OLD                 

because if an attacker can guess the token associated with an IKE SA, she can tear down

SUGGESTED

because if an attacker can guess the token associated with an IKE SA, they can tear down

3. Section 9.2 "QCD Token Transmission" 3rd paragraph last sentence:

Replace 'it' with 'this'

OLD               

One way to do it is to synchronize

SUGGESTED 

One way to do this is to synchronize

[Ballot discuss]
The DISCUSS and COMMENT is based in part on the OPS-DIR review performed by Menachem Dodge.

This is a well written and useful document and I will support its approval after the following two issues are discussed and fixed if agreed:

1. I would have expected that the Operational Considerations section include some information about configuration. It looks at a minimum the activation of the QCD method should be configurable, and the capability to shitch it off in networks where it involves a security risk should be provided.

2. In Section 9.2 last paragraph, it is not completely clear as to what method should be implemented in the case of a load-sharing cluster when the load balancer cannot guarantee that all "IKE packets from the same source IP address always go to the same cluster". Should QCD Token Transmission not be implemented in such a situation?

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
registration in the 16406-40959 range of the IKEv2 Notify Message Types
registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters

TBD QUICK_CRASH_DETECTION [RFC-to-be]

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (A Quick Crash Detection Method for IKE) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Security Maintenance and
Extensions WG (ipsecme) to consider the following document:
- 'A Quick Crash Detection Method for IKE'
  as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-03-10. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-failure-detection/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-failure-detection/

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
Paul Hoffman, co-chair of IPsecME WG. Yes. Yes.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
Yes. It recently went through a WG LC. There were not a lot of
comments on the document, but at least a few people who are not the
document authors commented.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?
No concerns.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.
No concerns.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?
The WG has run out of steam, but I believe that there is rough
consensus both in the utility of this new protocol and in the
protocol's design.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)
No threats.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
All ID nits satisfied.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
Yes, and I agree with the split. (I just noticed that one of the
informative references is now an RFC and the other is expired,
but we can deal with those after IETF LC.)

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
There is one IANA request, and it is properly formed.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?
No formal language used.

Technical Summary
When an IPsec tunnel between two IKEv2 peers is disconnected due
to a restart of one peer, it can take as much as several minutes
for the other peer to discover that the reboot has occurred. This
delays the recovery of the tunnel. This document describes an
IKEv2 extension that allows discovery of the reboot almost
immediately after the rebooted system is active again.

Working Group Summary
There was consensus both that this is a problem that needs to be
solved and for the proposed solution.

Document Quality
Some vendors expressed interest in implementing this in their
IPsec gateways.