Renaming Extended Sequence Number (ESN) Transform Type in the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-rename-esn-05

[Ballot comment]
No reference entries found for these items, which were mentioned in the text:
[RFCXXXX].

Possible DOWNREF from this Standards Track doc to [IKEV2-IANA]. If so, the IESG
needs to approve it.

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term "he"; alternatives might be "they", "them", "their"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Section 3, paragraph 3
+ NIT:

Section 3, paragraph 3
>    *  By "sequence numbers" here we assume logical entities (like
>      counters) that can be used for replay protection on receiving
>      sides.  In particular, these entities are not necessary the
>      content of the Sequence Number field in the IPsec packets, but may
>      be constructed using some information, that is not necessary
>      transmitted.


s/that is not necessary transmitted/that is not necessarily transmitted/

Document references draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ikev2-19, but -20 is the latest
available revision.

Paragraph 2
> kev2-rename-esn-03 Abstract This documents clarifies and extends the meaning
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
Consider using the singular form after the singular determiner "This".

Section 1, paragraph 1
> ate packets. Both AH and ESP allow to use either a 32-bit counter or a 64-bit
>                                    ^^^^^^
Did you mean "using"? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice,
"allow" + "to" takes an object, usually a pronoun.

Section 1, paragraph 3
> ction is enabled on receiving side. Thus the sender should always send the in
>                                    ^^^^
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Thus".

Section 3, paragraph 7
> on whether these properties allow to achieve replay protection. Some existing
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
Did you mean "achieving"? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice,
"allow" + "to" takes an object, usually a pronoun.

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-rename-esn-03
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Nits

### S3

* "are not necessary" -> "are not necessarily"

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-rename-esn-02. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the Transform Type Values in the Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2) Parameters registry group located at:

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

The existing transform type 5 "Extended Sequence Numbers (ESN)" is renamed to "Sequence Numbers Properties (SNP)".

In addition, [ RFC-to-be ] is added to the Reference column of Transform Type 5 in this registry.

Finally, the following note is added to the existing note for the Transform Type Values registry:

"Sequence Numbers Properties (SNP)" transform type was originally named "Extended Sequence Numbers (ESN)" and was referenced by that name in a number of RFCs published prior to [RFCXXXX], which gave it the current title.

Second, in the existing "Transform Type 5 - Extended Sequence Numbers Transform IDs" registry, also in the the Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2) Parameters registry group located at:

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

the registry is to be renamed to:

Transform Type 5 - Sequence Numbers Properties Transform IDs

In this registry, the existing Transform ID 0 "No Extended Sequence Numbers" is renamed to "32-bit Sequential Numbers".

The existing Transform ID 1 "Extended Sequence Numbers" is renamed to "Partially Transmitted 64-bit Sequential Numbers".

For both of these Transform IDs, [ RFC-to-be ] is to be added to the references for these renamed registrations.

A note is to be added to this registry as follows:

This registry was originally named "Transform Type 5 - Extended Sequence Numbers Transform IDs" and was referenced using that name in a number of RFCs published prior to [ RFC-to-be ], which gave it the current title.

"32-bit Sequential Numbers" transform ID was originally named "No Extended Sequence Numbers" and was referenced by that name in a number of RFCs published prior to [ RFC-to-be ], which gave it the current title.

"Partially Transmitted 64-bit Sequential Numbers" transform ID was originally named "Extended Sequence Numbers" and was referenced by that name in a number of RFCs published prior to [ RFC-to-be ], which gave it the current title.

We understand that these two actions are the only ones 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.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-01-13):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-rename-esn@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org, ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, kivinen@iki.fi
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Renaming Extended Sequence Number (ESN) Transform Type in the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Security Maintenance and
Extensions WG (ipsecme) to consider the following document: - 'Renaming
Extended Sequence Number (ESN) Transform Type in the Internet
  Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)'
  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 2025-01-13. 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 clarifies and extends the meaning of transform type 5
  in IKEv2.  It updates RFC 7296 by renaming the transform type 5 from
  "Extended Sequence Numbers (ESN)" to "Sequence Numbers Properties
  (SNP)".  It also renames two currently defined values for this
  transform type: value 0 from "No Extended Sequence Numbers" to
  "32-bit Sequential Numbers" and value 1 from "Extended Sequence
  Numbers" to "Partially Transmitted 64-bit Sequential Numbers".




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



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

# 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?

During the IETF last call of the g-ikev2 draft, there were comments that renaming
IKEv2 IANA registries inside the large optional protocol is not that good, so
the renaming of the "Extended Sequence Numbers (ESN)" registry to "Sequence
Numbers Properties (SNP)" would be better done in separate draft.

This draft is doing that. There has been consensus in the WG to do this change.

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

Because this is about naming, everybody has their own views what color the
bike shed should be, so there were several proposals for the new name.

Everybody agreed that old name was bad, and in the end we found acceptable name.

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)?

As this does not change any bits on the wire, only names used in the IANA
registries, all previous IPsec implementations work with this change. There
might be minor user interface changes done by the implementations, and
some of the implementations might want to rename their APIs or configuration
files to match.

## 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, need for additional reviews.

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 reviews 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 needed. No yang module known that would need changes because
of this change.

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 formal language included.

## 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?

Yes.

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?

As this is just renaming IANA registry and do not change any actual bits on
the wire, no additional directory reviews are needed.

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?

As this modified the IANA registry naming and values of the RFC7296 which is
an Internet Standard, this updates that RFC, so it people implementing it
will know about the updated names. Because this updates internet standard RFC
this document has been marked as standard track document.

Datatracker already reflects this status.

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.

No IPRs known, and authors have been polled about it.

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.)

No nits.

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

References are correct.

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 references are either IANA registries, RFCs or Internet-Drafts.

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.

There is no down refs now, but the IPsec architecture (RFC4301), AH (RFC4302),
and ESP (RFC4303) are all proposed standards, and the IKEv2 (RFC7296) that
this updates is internet standard, so if this document would later be changed
to same level as IKEv2 (RFC7296), there would be down refs to those three
RFCs. RFC7296 already has normative reference to IPsec architecture (RFC4301),
but AH (RFC4302) and ESP (RFC4303) are informative references there.

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?

No.

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.

Yes, this will update IKEv2 (RFC7296). This information is show in on title
page, and in the abstract. The introduction do not explicitly say this document
updates RFC7296.

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 is all about the IANA registry name changes. One of the authors
is the IANA expert reviewer of the registries in question, and shepherd
reviewer is the another IANA expert for the registries.

The changes requested from IANA has been clearly identified.

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 are created.

[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/

# 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?

During the IETF last call of the g-ikev2 draft, there were comments that renaming
IKEv2 IANA registries inside the large optional protocol is not that good, so
the renaming of the "Extended Sequence Numbers (ESN)" registry to "Sequence
Numbers Properties (SNP)" would be better done in separate draft.

This draft is doing that. There has been consensus in the WG to do this change.

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

Because this is about naming, everybody has their own views what color the
bike shed should be, so there were several proposals for the new name.

Everybody agreed that old name was bad, and in the end we found acceptable name.

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)?

As this does not change any bits on the wire, only names used in the IANA
registries, all previous IPsec implementations work with this change. There
might be minor user interface changes done by the implementations, and
some of the implementations might want to rename their APIs or configuration
files to match.

## 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, need for additional reviews.

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 reviews 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 needed. No yang module known that would need changes because
of this change.

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 formal language included.

## 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?

Yes.

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?

As this is just renaming IANA registry and do not change any actual bits on
the wire, no additional directory reviews are needed.

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?

As this modified the IANA registry naming and values of the RFC7296 which is
an Internet Standard, this updates that RFC, so it people implementing it
will know about the updated names. Because this updates internet standard RFC
this document has been marked as standard track document.

Datatracker already reflects this status.

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.

No IPRs known, and authors have been polled about it.

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.)

No nits.

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

References are correct.

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 references are either IANA registries, RFCs or Internet-Drafts.

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.

There is no down refs now, but the IPsec architecture (RFC4301), AH (RFC4302),
and ESP (RFC4303) are all proposed standards, and the IKEv2 (RFC7296) that
this updates is internet standard, so if this document would later be changed
to same level as IKEv2 (RFC7296), there would be down refs to those three
RFCs. RFC7296 already has normative reference to IPsec architecture (RFC4301),
but AH (RFC4302) and ESP (RFC4303) are informative references there.

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?

No.

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.

Yes, this will update IKEv2 (RFC7296). This information is show in on title
page, and in the abstract. The introduction do not explicitly say this document
updates RFC7296.

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 is all about the IANA registry name changes. One of the authors
is the IANA expert reviewer of the registries in question, and shepherd
reviewer is the another IANA expert for the registries.

The changes requested from IANA has been clearly identified.

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 are created.

[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/