Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) extension for Header Compression Profile (HCP)
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-diet-esp-extension-07
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (ipsecme WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Daniel Migault , Maryam Hatami , Daiying Liu , Stere Preda , J. William Atwood , Sandra Cespedes , Tobias Guggemos , David Schinazi | ||
| Last updated | 2026-02-15 | ||
| Replaces | draft-mglt-ipsecme-ikev2-diet-esp-extension | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | In WG Last Call | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-diet-esp-extension-07
IPsecme D. Migault
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track M. Hatami
Expires: 19 August 2026 Concordia University
D. Liu
S. Preda
Ericsson
W. Atwood
S. Céspedes
Concordia University
T. Guggemos
LMU
D. Schinazi
Google LLC
15 February 2026
Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) extension for Header Compression
Profile (HCP)
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-diet-esp-extension-07
Abstract
This document describes an IKEv2 extension for Header Compression to
agree on Attributes for Rule Derivation. This extension defines the
necessary registries for the ESP Header Compression Profile (EHCP)
Diet-ESP.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 August 2026.
Migault, et al. Expires 19 August 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EHC extension February 2026
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. HCP_PROPOSAL Notify Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Attributes for Rule Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Generic Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Registering a Header Compression Profile . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. AfRD for the Diet-ESP HCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Registration of IKEv2 Notify Message Types . . . . . . . 9
8.2. Registry for Generic Attributes for Rule Derivation . . . 10
8.3. Registry for IKEv2 Header Compression Profile . . . . . . 10
8.4. Registry for Diet-ESP Attributes for Rule Derivation . . 10
8.5. Registries for the Values of Diet-ESP Attributes for Rule
Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.5.1. DSCP Action Value Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.5.2. ECN Action Value Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.5.3. Flow Label Action Value Registry . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.5.4. ESP Byte Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.6. ESP Trailer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Requirements notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Migault, et al. Expires 19 August 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EHC extension February 2026
2. Introduction
The ESP Header Compression Profile (EHCP) [I-D.ietf-ipsecme-diet-esp]
minimizes the overhead associated with ESP by compressing both the
ESP header and additional fields within the secured packet. EHCP
utilizes Attributes for Rule Derivation (AfRD) that are specified for
each Security Association (SA). Certain AfRD have already been
established during the SA negotiation process through IKEv2. This
extension facilitates the agreement on the remaining AfRD through
IKEv2.
3. Protocol Overview
As illustrated in Figure 1, an initiator intending to utilize the
Header Compression Profile (HCP) informs its peer by sending a
HCP_PROPOSAL Notify Payload during the IKE_AUTH and CREATE_CHILD_SA
exchanges. The HCP_PROPOSAL includes a list of Proposals, each
comprising an EHCP Name along with a set of AfRD
[I-D.ietf-ipsecme-diet-esp]. Any AfRD for which the initiator wishes
to specify no limitations SHOULD be excluded, i.e., an AfRD is only
sent if the sending peer wants the receiving peer to select a subset
of the available values. A given AfRD MAY be repeated with different
values in order to provide a list of acceptable values. A range of
possible AfRD values MAY be indicated as well.
If a Proposal contains an unknown HCP Name, or any AfRD in a Proposal
is unknown, then the entire Proposal must be discarded by the
responder. If none of the received Proposals are deemed acceptable,
the responder MAY choose to discard the HCP_PROPOSAL Notify Payload.
Nevertheless, it is anticipated that the responder will provide an
explanation for rejecting all HCP Proposals. If the reason pertains
to an AfRD with an unacceptable value, the responder SHOULD reply
with a NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN Notify Payload.
Conversely, if the receiver identifies a suitable Proposal, it will
respond with an HCP_PROPOSAL Notify Payload that includes the chosen
Proposal. In cases where the AfRD was not explicitly stated, the
responder will provide the AfRD unless it defaults to a standard
value. Each AfRD MUST NOT be mentioned more than one time. When
multiple values are provided for a specific AfRD (either multiple
values being provided or via a range of acceptable values), the
responder MUST NOT provide more than one value. The Proposal MUST
NOT contain any range of AfRD.
Upon receipt of an NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN Notify Payload, the initiator
has the option to restart the CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange.
Migault, et al. Expires 19 August 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EHC extension February 2026
When the initiator receives the HCP_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN Notify Payload,
it will evaluate the Proposal to ensure that it aligns with the
initial proposal and adheres to its policies prior to executing the
HCP.
Initiator Responder
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HDR, SA, KEi, Ni -->
<-- HDR, SA, KEr, Nr
HDR, SK {IDi, AUTH,
SA, TSi, TSr,
N(HCP_PROPOSAL
Proposal_ID=1, HCP Name="Diet-ESP"
AfRD_a
...
AfRD_i
...
Proposal_ID=2, HCP Name="Diet-ESP"
AfRD_a
...
AfRD_j)
<-- HDR, SK {IDr, AUTH,
SA, TSi, TSr,
N(HCP_PROPOSAL
Proposal_ID=2, HCP Name="Diet-ESP"
AfRD_a
...
AfRD_j,
AfRD_k,
...
AfRD_u)
Figure 1: The parameters for Diet-ESP have been established
through the HCP_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN Notify exchange. In this
instance, the responder has opted for the second Proposal, which
includes the specified AfRD. Any absent AfRD will default to its
predetermined values.
4. HCP_PROPOSAL Notify Payload
Figure 2 describes the HCP_PROPOSAL Notify Payload.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Payload |C| RESERVED | Payload Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol ID | SPI Size | Notify Message Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Migault, et al. Expires 19 August 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EHC extension February 2026
Figure 2: Notify Payload
The fields Next Payload, Critical Bit, RESERVED, and Payload Length
are defined in section 3.10 of [RFC7296].
Protocol ID (1 octet): set to zero.
SPI Size (1 octet): set to zero.
Notify Message Type (2 octets): Specifies the type of notification
message. It is set to TBA1 for HCP_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN.
When sent by the Initiator, the HCP_PROPOSAL Notify Payload contains
a list of Proposals described in Figure 3. When sent by the
responder the HCP_PROPOSAL Notify Payload contains a single Payload
described in Figure 3.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Proposal ID | HCP Name | Proposal Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Proposal Data ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Proposal
Proposal ID (1 octet): The number identifying the Proposal.
EHCP Name (1 octet): The identifier of the EHCP Name (see Table 2).
Proposal Length (2 octets): The length in octets of the Proposal
Data.
Proposal Data: A Proposal contains a set of parameters that are
represented via Transform Attribute format [RFC7296],
Section 3.3.5 and detailed further as described in Section 5.
5. Attributes for Rule Derivation
Attributes for Rule Derivation (AfRD) follow the same format as the
Transform Attribute [RFC7296], Section 3.3.5 copied for convenience
in Figure 4.
Migault, et al. Expires 19 August 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EHC extension February 2026
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| Attribute Type | AF=0 Attribute Length |
|F| | AF=1 Attribute Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AF=0 Attribute Data |
| AF=1 Not Transmitted |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Transform Attribute Payload
There exist two categories of attributes: 1) generic attributes,
which are applicable across all HCPs and serve to enhance the
representation of a combination of AfRDs, and 2) AfRDs that are
tailored to a particular HCP and possess a distinct value.
5.1. Generic Attributes
This specification defines range_afrd_proposal as a Generic Attribute
for Rule Derivation to specify that a given AfRD can be selected
within a range of values.
* Designation: range_afrd_proposal
* Attribute Format: 0
* Attribute Data: Let AfRD_min and AfRD_max be the minimum and
maximum values of the proposed range, expressed following the
Transform Attribute Payload format. The corresponding Attribute
Data is the concatenation of AfRD_min and AfRD_max.
To avoid ambiguity, it is explicitly required that both AfRD_min and
AfRD_max refer to the same type of parameter and that they are
processed as attributes with values defining the minimum and maximum
of the range. This ensures consistent interpretation during
negotiation and compression.
The figure below illustrates a Proposal for a compressed SPI between
6 and 8 bit long. SPI are compressed by sending LSB, so in our case
AfRD_min is an esp_spi_lsb AfRD set to 6 and AfRD_max is a
esp_spi_lsb set to 8. The esp_spi_lsb AfRD is detailed in the Diet-
ESP EHCP Section 7 and is a 2 byte length Attribute. The resulting
range proposal is expressed via the combination of the
range_afrd_proposal and AfRD_min and AfRD_max.
Migault, et al. Expires 19 August 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EHC extension February 2026
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| range_afrd_proposal | Attribute Length = 4 octets |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| esp_spi_lsb | Attribute Value = 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| esp_spi_lsb | Attribute Value = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Illustration of the use of the range_afrd_proposal
defining a range of SPI length
6. Registering a Header Compression Profile
An HCP needs to register an HCP Name taken from Table 2 in
Section 8.3, the specification that describes the operations of the
EHCP, as well as the different AfRD. For each AfRD, the
corresponding Attribute Type, the AF value, the Attribute Data or
Attribute Value and the Default Value MUST be specified.
7. AfRD for the Diet-ESP HCP
This section defines the code points that are needed to agree on the
AfRD between two IKEv2 peers as described in Section 6.
* HCP Name: "Diet-ESP" as specified in Table 2, Section 8.3.
* Specification : [I-D.ietf-ipsecme-diet-esp]
The following Attributes for Rule Derivation are defined:
DSCP Action
* Designation: dscp_action
* Attribute Format: 1
* Attribute Value: DSCP Action takes discrete values coded over one
byte as described in DSCP Action Value Registry (Table 4 in
Section 8.5.1)
* Default Value: the default value is set to "not_compressed"
ECN Action
* Designation: ecn_action
* Attribute Format: 1
Migault, et al. Expires 19 August 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EHC extension February 2026
* Attribute Value: ECN ACTION takes discrete values coded over one
byte as described in the ECN ACTION Value Registry (Table 5 in
Section 8.5.2)
* Default Value: the default value is set to "not_compressed"
Flow Label Action
* Designation: flow_label_action
* Attribute Format: 1
* Attribute Value: Flow Label ACTION takes discrete values coded
over one byte as described in the Flow Label ACTION Value Registry
(Table 6 in Section 8.5.3)
* Default Value: the default value is set to "not_compressed"
ESP Byte Alignment
* Designation: alignment
* Attribute Format: 1
* Attribute Value: Byte Alignment takes discrete values coded over
one byte as described in the Bit Alignment Value Registry (Table 7
in Section 8.5.4)
* Default Value: the default value is set to "64 bit", which
corresponds to the standard IPv6 bit alignment. The default value
of 64 bit in this specification refers to the bit alignment used
for Diet-ESP compression operations and does not override or
contradict the alignment requirements of RFC 4303. Instead, the
alignment specified here ensures compatibility with the SCHC
compression framework, which is designed to operate efficiently in
constrained networks.
ESP Trailer
* Designation: esp_trailer
* Attribute Format: 1
* Attribute Value: ESP Trailer takes discrete values coded over one
byte as described in the Bit Alignment Value Registry (Table 8 in
Section 8.6)
Migault, et al. Expires 19 August 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EHC extension February 2026
* Default Value: the default value is set to "Optional", which
enables the ESP Trailer to be compressed.
Security Parameter Index (SPI) Least Significant Bits (LSB)
* Designation: esp_spi_lsb
* Attribute Format: 1
* Attribute Value: SPI LSB designates the number of bits that are
provided to infer the SPI. This number is between 0 and 32.
* Default Value: the default value is 32, which is the size of the
standard SPI in the standard ESP.
Sequence Number (SN) Least Significant Bits (LSB)
* Designation: esp_sn_lsb
* Attribute Format: 1
* Attribute Value: SN LSB designates the number of bits that are
provided to infer the SPI. This number is between 0 and 32.
* Default Value: the default value is 32, which is the size of the
standard SN in the standard ESP.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. Registration of IKEv2 Notify Message Types
IANA has allocated one value in the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types -
Status Types" registry:
Value Notify Messages - Status Types
-----------------------------------------
TBA1 HCP_PROPOSAL
This specification requests the IANA to create a Header Compression
Profile registry (see Section 8.3), as well as the necessary
registries for the ESP Header Compression Profile Diet-ESP, that is
the Attributes for Rule Derivation (see Section 8.4) as well as, when
required, the complementary specific AfRD Values associated with each
AfRD (see Section 8.5).
Note that the term "Header Compression Profile" reflects the purpose
of the registry, which is to define profiles for ESP header
compression using the Diet-ESP methodology. While the registry is
Migault, et al. Expires 19 August 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EHC extension February 2026
managed and utilized exclusively by IKEv2 for negotiating compression
parameters, its scope is limited to ESP header compression and does
not extend to IKEv2 itself.
All registries are "Specification Required".
8.2. Registry for Generic Attributes for Rule Derivation
Registry for Generic Attributes for Rule Derivation. When Associated
Data is set to YES, the AF bit of the corresponding Transform
Attribute Payload is set to 0; otherwise it is set to 1. The AfRD
Code Point mentioned here MUST NOT be reused by any Registries
associated with any Profile and is shared by all profiles.
+===========+=======+=====================+===========+===========+
| AfRD Code | Full | Designation | Attribute | Reference |
| Point | Name | | Format | |
+===========+=======+=====================+===========+===========+
| 65535 | RANGE | range_afrd_proposal | 0 | ThisRFC |
| | AfRD | | | |
+-----------+-------+---------------------+-----------+-----------+
Table 1
Each entry in the range is represented by two attributes (AfRD_min
and AfRD_max), both following the 2-byte Attribute Type format
specified in [RFC7296]. This ensures clarity and compatibility in
all implementations.
8.3. Registry for IKEv2 Header Compression Profile
+================+=============+===========+
| Value (1 Byte) | Designation | Reference |
+================+=============+===========+
| 0 | Diet-ESP | ThisRFC |
+----------------+-------------+-----------+
| 1-255 | unallocated | - |
+----------------+-------------+-----------+
Table 2
8.4. Registry for Diet-ESP Attributes for Rule Derivation
Registry for Attributes for Rule Derivation for the ESP Header
Compression Profile Diet-ESP. When Associated Data is set to YES,
the AF bit of the corresponding Transform Attribute Payload is set to
0; otherwise it is set to 1.
Migault, et al. Expires 19 August 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EHC extension February 2026
The Diet-ESP Attributes for Rule Derivation registry specifies six
AfRD parameters explicitly defined for Diet-ESP that are not part of
the standard IKEv2 negotiation process. These attributes are
required for implementing the Diet-ESP Header Compression Profile.
The remaining attributes referenced in [RFC7296], [RFC4301], and
related drafts (e.g., DSCP values) are already defined and negotiated
during the creation of the CHILD SA.
+========+=============+===================+===========+===========+
| AfRD | Full Name | Designation | Attribute | Reference |
| Code | | | Format | |
| Point | | | | |
+========+=============+===================+===========+===========+
| 0 | DSCP Action | dscp_action | 1 | ThisRFC |
+--------+-------------+-------------------+-----------+-----------+
| 1 | ECN Action | ecn_action | 1 | ThisRFC |
+--------+-------------+-------------------+-----------+-----------+
| 2 | Flow Label | flow_label_action | 1 | ThisRFC |
| | Action | | | |
+--------+-------------+-------------------+-----------+-----------+
| 3 | Alignment | alignment | 1 | ThisRFC |
+--------+-------------+-------------------+-----------+-----------+
| 4 | SPI LSB | esp_spi_lsb | 1 | ThisRFC |
+--------+-------------+-------------------+-----------+-----------+
| 5 | SN LSB | esp_sn_lsb | 1 | ThisRFC |
+--------+-------------+-------------------+-----------+-----------+
| 6 - | unallocated | - | - | - |
| 2^16-2 | | | | |
+--------+-------------+-------------------+-----------+-----------+
Table 3
8.5. Registries for the Values of Diet-ESP Attributes for Rule
Derivation
8.5.1. DSCP Action Value Registry
+=======+================+===========+
| Value | Designation | Reference |
+=======+================+===========+
| 0 | not_compressed | ThisRFC |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 1 | lower | ThisRFC |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 2 | sa | ThisRFC |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 3-255 | unallocated | - |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
Migault, et al. Expires 19 August 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EHC extension February 2026
Table 4
8.5.2. ECN Action Value Registry
+=======+================+===========+
| Value | Designation | Reference |
+=======+================+===========+
| 0 | not_compressed | ThisRFC |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 1 | lower | ThisRFC |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 2-255 | unallocated | - |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
Table 5
8.5.3. Flow Label Action Value Registry
+=======+================+===========+
| Value | Designation | Reference |
+=======+================+===========+
| 0 | not_compressed | ThisRFC |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 1 | lower | ThisRFC |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 2 | generated | ThisRFC |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 3 | zero | ThisRFC |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 4-255 | unallocated | - |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
Table 6
8.5.4. ESP Byte Alignment
+=======+=============+===========+
| Value | Designation | Reference |
+=======+=============+===========+
| 0 | 8 bit | ThisRFC |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
| 1 | 16 bit | ThisRFC |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
| 2 | 32 bit | ThisRFC |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
| 3 | 64 bit | ThisRFC |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
| 4-255 | unallocated | - |
Migault, et al. Expires 19 August 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EHC extension February 2026
+-------+-------------+-----------+
Table 7
8.6. ESP Trailer
+=======+=============+===========+
| Value | Designation | Reference |
+=======+=============+===========+
| 0 | Mandatory | ThisRFC |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
| 1 | Optional | ThisRFC |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
| 2-255 | unallocated | - |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
Table 8
9. Security Considerations
The protocol defined in this document does not modify IKEv2.
Proposals may be expressed in various ways and a proposal may be
expressed in a specific way so that its treatment overloads the
receiver. The receiver needs to consider aborting the exchange when
too much resource is required.
10. Acknowledgements
The authors extend their gratitude to Samita Chakrabart, Tero
Kivinen, Michael Richardson and Valery Smyslov for their long time
support. The authors would like to acknowledge the support from
Mitacs through the Mitacs Accelerate program.
11. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ipsecme-diet-esp]
Migault, D., Hatami, M., Cespedes, S., Atwood, J. W., Liu,
D., Guggemos, T., Bormann, C., and D. Schinazi, "ESP
Header Compression with Diet-ESP", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ipsecme-diet-esp-09, 17 August
2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
ipsecme-diet-esp-09>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Migault, et al. Expires 19 August 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EHC extension February 2026
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.
[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Authors' Addresses
Daniel Migault
Ericsson
Email: daniel.migault@ericsson.com
Maryam Hatami
Concordia University
Email: maryam.hatami@mail.concordia.ca
Daiying Liu
Ericsson
Email: harold.liu@ericsson.com
Stere Preda
Ericsson
Email: stere.preda@ericsson.com
J. William Atwood
Concordia University
Email: william.atwood@concordia.ca
Sandra Céspedes
Concordia University
Email: sandra.cespedes@concordia.ca
Tobias Guggemos
LMU
Email: guggemos@nm.ifi.lmu.de
Migault, et al. Expires 19 August 2026 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft EHC extension February 2026
David Schinazi
Google LLC
Email: dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com
Migault, et al. Expires 19 August 2026 [Page 15]