Intermediate Exchange in the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate-10

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this. I have just a couple minor questions/suggestions.

1. Section 3.2, “these exchanges MUST follow each other”. I suppose what is meant is, “these exchanges MUST be sequential” (this hardly seems to need to be mandated, but OK). Or is something else intended, in which case, what is it?

2. In Section 3.4, there is:

  not all error notifications may ever appear in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE
  exchange (for example, errors concerning authentication are generally
  only applicable to the IKE_AUTH exchange).

I can’t make sense of what the word “ever” is doing there. It makes sense to me if I remove “ever” to make it “not all error notifications may appear”. It’s OK if I change “ever” to “even”. But I don’t get it, as written. Am I missing something, or would one of my edits be appropriate?

[Ballot comment]
(3.2) "Implementations MUST verify that Message IDs in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE messages [increment by 1]". Or what? In any case, isn't this fully enforced by the WINDOW_SIZE parameter in Sec 2.3 of RFC 7296? That is, if WINDOW_SIZE == 1, any message that doesn't increment by 1 will simply be ignored. If WINDOW_SIZE > 1, receiving an increment > 1 is in fact legal (due to packet loss) but the window will not advance until all IDs are received?

(5) The security considerations hint at it with all the DoS talk, but it would be valuable to place some limits on the kind of information that can be contained in IKE_INTERMEDIATE and how it is processed. The document doesn't appear to explicitly restrict these messages to overflow from IKE_SA_INIT messages, so if an extension sends e.g. user data in these what are the implications? I'd suggest that applications not process such data until AUTH exchange is complete.

While I am not particularly happy with solely using the WINDOW_SIZE mechanism to regulate the amount of data in flight, IMO that is an issue with RFC 7296 and not this document.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Yoav Nir for the shepherd's write-up including the section about the WG consensus.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## Abstract

The abstract would benefit by adding a few use cases / applicability statement (per the shepherd's write-up and introduction, i.e., a hint for PQ crypto).

## Section 1

s/If size of a message is large enough, IP fragmentation takes place/If size of a message is larger than the MTU, IP fragmentation takes place/

RFC 7383 is dated 2014, is it still applicable in 2022 ?

[Ballot comment]
In Section 5, it's peculiar to use normative keywords ("RECOMMENDED", in this case) against future documents.  I suggest lower-casing that word.

In Section 6, the full name of the second registry being updated is "IKEv2 Notify Message Types - Status Types".

[Ballot comment]
A few editorial items:

** Section 1.  Editorial.  s/If size of/If the size of/

** Section 1.  Editorial.  Per “… that may interfere badly with some network devices”, can something more precise than “interfere badly” be used? Perhaps:

OLD:
That may interfere badly with some network devices

NEW
Which has been shown to cause operational challenge in certain network configurations and devices.

** Section 3.3.2.  Editorial.  Per “… because peers generally are unaware in which form other side has received them”, there is a missing word here.

** Section 3.3.2. Editorial. s/After n-th exchange/After the n-th exchange/

**Section 3.3.2. Editorial. 
OLD
The IntAuth_[i/r]*A chunk lasts from ...

NEW
The IntAuth [i/r]*A chunk consists of the sequence of octets from ...

** Section 8.  Typo. s/regadless/regardless/

[Ballot comment]
Section 1. , paragraph 5, comment:
>    This specification describes a way to transfer a large amount of data
>    in IKEv2 using UDP transport.  For this purpose the document defines

To a transport person, "a large amount of data" sounds like a bulk transfer.
Surely this isn't the intention here? Could the text more precisely state for
which data sizes this is an appropriate mechanism?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Paragraph 3, nit:
> v2-intermediate-09 Abstract This documents defines a new exchange, called Int
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
Consider using the singular form after the singular determiner "This".

Section 1. , paragraph 3, nit:
> um Computer (QC) resistant ones. Currently most QC-resistant key exchange me
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Currently".

Section 1. , paragraph 3, nit:
> r IKEv2, as defined in [RFC8229]. However this approach has significant draw
>                                  ^^^^^^^
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "However".

Section 3.3.2. , paragraph 17, nit:
> ready to be encrypted) fragments. However care must be taken to properly rep
>                                  ^^^^^^^
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "However".

Section 3.3.2. , paragraph 18, nit:
> e[i/r] and SK_a[i/r] used for its messages protection (see Section 3.3.1) an
>                                  ^^^^^^^^
An apostrophe may be missing.

Section 3.4. , paragraph 2, nit:
> he peers can be certain that they receives messages from the party they perf
>                                  ^^^^^^^^
The pronoun "they" must be used with a non-third-person form of a verb.

Section 5. , paragraph 4, nit:
> nt interoperable implementations of this specifications from the following v
>                                    ^^^^
The demonstrative "this" may not agree with the plural noun "specifications".
Did you mean "these"?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the IKEv2 Exchange Types registry on the Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/

the existing registration for:

Value: 43
Exchange Type: IKE_INTERMEDIATE

will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the IKEv2 Notify Message Types - Status Types registry also on the Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/

the existing registration for:

Value: 16438
Notify Messages - Status Types: INTERMEDIATE_EXCHANGE_SUPPORTED

will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-02-24):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org, ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, kaduk@mit.edu, ynir.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Intermediate Exchange in the IKEv2 Protocol) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Security Maintenance and
Extensions WG (ipsecme) to consider the following document: - 'Intermediate
Exchange in the IKEv2 Protocol'
  as 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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-02-24. 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.

Abstract


  This documents defines a new exchange, called Intermediate Exchange,
  for the Internet Key Exchange protocol Version 2 (IKEv2).  This
  exchange can be used for transferring large amounts of data in the
  process of IKEv2 Security Association (SA) establishment.
  Introducing the Intermediate Exchange allows re-using the existing
  IKE fragmentation mechanism, that helps to avoid IP fragmentation of
  large IKE messages, but cannot be used in the initial IKEv2 exchange.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

We are requesting to publish this document as a Proposed Standard. It provides an additional IKE exchange between the IKE_SA_INIT and the IKE_AUTH exchanges. It assigns no semantics to this exchange, but follow-on documents making their way through the working group will use this exchange to negotiate PQ keys. Those will need to be standards track, and will use this as a normative reference. For this reason, it must be standards track, and this is indicated on the first page.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:
  This document defines a new exchange, called Intermediate Exchange,
  for the Internet Key Exchange protocol Version 2 (IKEv2).  This
  exchange can be used for transferring large amount of data in the
  process of IKEv2 Security Association (SA) establishment.
  Introducing Intermediate Exchange allows re-using existing IKE
  fragmentation mechanism, that helps to avoid IP fragmentation of
  large IKE messages, but cannot be used in the initial IKEv2 exchange.

Working Group Summary:
  The document content was not particularly controversial. The only issue some had was about creating a generic intermediate exchange, separate from the future documents that will actually use it.
  However, the consensus was not rough.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

There are three independent implementations of the draft, one by the author and two other by open source implementations (libreswan and strongswan). All three were tested as interoperable with each other.

Personnel:

Yoav Nir is the document Shepherd. Ben Kaduk is the responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I have reviewed the document thoroughly and think it is ready to proceed. There are some linguistic deficiencies, mostly about missing articles, but I believe the RFC Editor is more qualified to fix these than the chairs. They do not hinder the document's readability.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

I have no concerns. Like most IPsecME documents, this document has received a review from the usual IPsec suspects: Tero, Paul W, Daniel Migault, Scott Fluhrer, and me.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

I believe the document got sufficient review. None of the examples apply, except perhaps security. Most of the reviewers mentioned above are, in fact, on SecDir.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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.

I do not have such concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

He has so confirmed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There have been no IPR disclosures.

(9) 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 consensus is solid.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

I am aware of no such nits. The nits automatic check is negative.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document defines an IKE extension. No formatting is used other than IKE formatting, for which the WG is the panel of experts.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

No. All normative references are to published RFCs

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

There are none.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No. This document extends RFC 7296, but does not update it.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The IANA considerations section is pretty simple as it only allocates a single exchange type and a single notification. Both allocations have already been made through the early allocation process.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

There are no new registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

There are none.  IKE still uses diagrams rather than a formal grammar.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

There is no YANG module.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

We are requesting to publish this document as a Proposed Standard. It provides an additional IKE exchange between the IKE_SA_INIT and the IKE_AUTH exchanges. It assigns no semantics to this exchange, but follow-on documents making their way through the working group will use this exchange to negotiate PQ keys. Those will need to be standards track, and will use this as a normative reference. For this reason, it must be standards track, and this is indicated on the first page.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:
  This document defines a new exchange, called Intermediate Exchange,
  for the Internet Key Exchange protocol Version 2 (IKEv2).  This
  exchange can be used for transferring large amount of data in the
  process of IKEv2 Security Association (SA) establishment.
  Introducing Intermediate Exchange allows re-using existing IKE
  fragmentation mechanism, that helps to avoid IP fragmentation of
  large IKE messages, but cannot be used in the initial IKEv2 exchange.

Working Group Summary:
  The document content was not particularly controversial. The only issue some had was about creating a generic intermediate exchange, separate from the future documents that will actually use it.
  However, the consensus was not rough.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

There are three independent implementations of the draft, one by the author and two other by open source implementations (libreswan and strongswan). All three were tested as interoperable with each other.

Personnel:

Yoav Nir is the document Shepherd. Ben Kaduk is the responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I have reviewed the document thoroughly and think it is ready to proceed. There are some linguistic deficiencies, mostly about missing articles, but I believe the RFC Editor is more qualified to fix these than the chairs. They do not hinder the document's readability.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

I have no concerns. Like most IPsecME documents, this document has received a review from the usual IPsec suspects: Tero, Paul W, Daniel Migault, Scott Fluhrer, and me.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

I believe the document got sufficient review. None of the examples apply, except perhaps security. Most of the reviewers mentioned above are, in fact, on SecDir.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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.

I do not have such concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

He has so confirmed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There have been no IPR disclosures.

(9) 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 consensus is solid.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

I am aware of no such nits. The nits automatic check is negative.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document defines an IKE extension. No formatting is used other than IKE formatting, for which the WG is the panel of experts.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

No. All normative references are to published RFCs

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

There are none.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No. This document extends RFC 7296, but does not update it.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The IANA considerations section is pretty simple as it only allocates a single exchange type and a single notification. Both allocations have already been made through the early allocation process.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

There are no new registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

There are none.  IKE still uses diagrams rather than a formal grammar.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

There is no YANG module.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

We are requesting to publish this document as a Proposed Standard. It provides an additional IKE exchange between the IKE_SA_INIT and the IKE_AUTH exchanges. It assigns no semantics to this exchange, but follow-on documents making their way through the working group will use this exchange to negotiate PQ keys. Those will need to be standards track, and will use this as a normative reference. For this reason, it must be standards track, and this is indicated on the first page.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:
  This document defines a new exchange, called Intermediate Exchange,
  for the Internet Key Exchange protocol Version 2 (IKEv2).  This
  exchange can be used for transferring large amount of data in the
  process of IKEv2 Security Association (SA) establishment.
  Introducing Intermediate Exchange allows re-using existing IKE
  fragmentation mechanism, that helps to avoid IP fragmentation of
  large IKE messages, but cannot be used in the initial IKEv2 exchange.

Working Group Summary:
  The document content was not particularly controversial. The only issue some had was about creating a generic intermediate exchange, separate from the future documents that will actually use it.
  However, the consensus was not rough.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

There are three independent implementations of the draft, one by the author and two other by open source implementations (libreswan and strongswan). All three were tested as interoperable with each other.

Personnel:

Yoav Nir is the document Shepherd. Roman Daniliw is the responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I have reviewed the document thoroughly and think it is ready to proceed. There are some linguistic deficiencies, mostly about missing articles, but I believe the RFC Editor is more qualified to fix these than the chairs. They do not hinder the document's readability.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

I have no concerns. Like most IPsecME documents, this document has received a review from the usual IPsec suspects: Tero, Paul W, Daniel Migault, Scott Fluhrer, and me.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

I believe the document got sufficient review. None of the examples apply, except perhaps security. Most of the reviewers mentioned above are, in fact, on SecDir.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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.

I do not have such concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

He has so confirmed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There have been no IPR disclosures.

(9) 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 consensus is solid.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

I am aware of no such nits. The nits automatic check is negative.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document defines an IKE extension. No formatting is used other than IKE formatting, for which the WG is the panel of experts.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

No. All normative references are to published RFCs

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

There are none.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No. This document extends RFC 7296, but does not update it.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The IANA considerations section is pretty simple as it only allocates a single exchange type and a single notification. Both allocations have already been made through the early allocation process.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

There are no new registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

There are none.  IKE still uses diagrams rather than a formal grammar.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

There is no YANG module.