Skip to main content

Mixing Preshared Keys in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE and in the CREATE_CHILD_SA Exchanges of IKEv2 for Post-quantum Security
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-qr-alt-05

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2025-02-17
05 Tero Kivinen IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2025-01-20
05 Wei Pan
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

It reached broad agreement in the WG as a useful method to protect the initial
IKE SA and additional IPsec SAs against quantum computers by means of Post-
quantum Preshared Key (PPK). This document was widely interested by the WG
participants.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There were a few implementations reported to the WG, including libreswan which
has implemented the latest version of this document.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

No additional reviews are needed.

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

No formal expert reviews are needed.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

No YANG module is contained.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No automated checks are needed as no formal language is used.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

I have reviewed the document, and my comments have been incorporated.
I think the document is needed and ready to be handed off to the AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

No special reviews were performed, and no issues were identified.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard is the proper type.
This document defines a method to protect the initial IKE SA and additional
IPsec SAs against quantum computers by means of Post-quantum Preshared Key, it
extends the IKEv2 which is on the Internet Standard level.
Datatracker correctly reflects this.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The IPR disclosure query hasn't been done yet.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Following are the warnings and comments, which I think they can be corrected by
the RFC Editor later.
  == The 'Updates: ' line in the draft header should list only the _numbers_
    of the RFCs which will be updated by this document (if approved); it
    should not include the word 'RFC' in the list.

  -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document updates RFC8784, but
    the header doesn't have an 'Updates:' line to match this.

  == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
    match the current year

  -- The document date (21 November 2024) is 60 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-20) exists of
    draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ikev2-17

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

References have been correctly split between informative and normative.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are RFCs already.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This document will update RFC8784. This information is listed on the title
page and in the abstract. The introduction does not explicitly say this document
updates RFC8784. The relationship with RFC8784 is detailed in Appendix A.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

This document request for two new Notify payloads for the "IKEv2 Notify Messages
Types - Status Types". This is correctly clarified in the document.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new registries added.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
2025-01-14
05 Tero Kivinen Notification list changed to william.panwei@huawei.com because the document shepherd was set
2025-01-14
05 Tero Kivinen Document shepherd changed to Wei Pan
2024-11-21
05 Valery Smyslov New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-qr-alt-05.txt
2024-11-21
05 Valery Smyslov New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Valery Smyslov)
2024-11-21
05 Valery Smyslov Uploaded new revision
2024-09-02
04 Valery Smyslov New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-qr-alt-04.txt
2024-09-02
04 Valery Smyslov New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Valery Smyslov)
2024-09-02
04 Valery Smyslov Uploaded new revision
2024-07-26
03 Tero Kivinen IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2024-07-26
03 Tero Kivinen Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2024-07-26
03 Tero Kivinen Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2024-07-26
03 Valery Smyslov New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-qr-alt-03.txt
2024-07-26
03 Valery Smyslov New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Valery Smyslov)
2024-07-26
03 Valery Smyslov Uploaded new revision
2024-07-25
02 Valery Smyslov New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-qr-alt-02.txt
2024-07-25
02 Valery Smyslov New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Valery Smyslov)
2024-07-25
02 Valery Smyslov Uploaded new revision
2024-07-01
01 Valery Smyslov New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-qr-alt-01.txt
2024-07-01
01 Valery Smyslov New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Valery Smyslov)
2024-07-01
01 Valery Smyslov Uploaded new revision
2024-04-16
00 Yoav Nir This document now replaces draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-qr-alt instead of None
2024-04-16
00 Valery Smyslov New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-qr-alt-00.txt
2024-04-16
00 Yoav Nir WG -00 approved
2024-04-12
00 Valery Smyslov Set submitter to "Valery Smyslov ", replaces to draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-qr-alt and sent approval email to group chairs: ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org
2024-04-12
00 Valery Smyslov Uploaded new revision