Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

The intended status is Proposed Standard. The document defines a protocol and
for interoperability the Internet Standard status is appropriated.

(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

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.

This document defines a way to omit the nonce from ESP packets when using
algorithms for which the nonce is entirely predictable and calculable from the
packet counter. This reduces per-packet overhead by 8 octets.

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly

The document has been highly reviewed and discussed and presented during
meetings and through the mailing list.

The implicit iv draft was first expressed in
[draft-mglt-ipsecme-diet-esp] { 00: March 2014, 01 Jul 2014 } and
presented during the IETF89 in London on March 2014 at the ipsecme
session [1]. The discussions lead to the following draft focusing on
implicit IV within the ipsecme WG :
[draft-mglt-ipsecme-diet-esp-iv-generation ] { 00 : Jul 2014 }. We were
suggested then to move this work in 6lo with lead to the following draft
[draft-mglt-6lo-aes-implicit-iv] { 00 : Dec 2014, 01 : Feb 2015} that
have been presented in the IETF 92 ipsecme session [2]. Implicit IV as
well as diet-esp has been presented in the IETF96 in Berlin [3] in July
2016, where 6lo chairs and ipsecme chairs agree that the right place to host
this work was ipsecme. [draft-mglt-ipsecme-implicit-iv] was then release
in June 2016 and adopted as a WG document in November 2017. This draft extended
the work from AES to ChaCha20Poly1305.   The document has been presented to the
ipsecme WG during the IETF89 [1], IETF92[2], IETF96[3], IETF97[5], IETF98[6],

[draft-mglt-ipsecme-implicit-iv] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

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, 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?

Apple has reported to have a kernel implementation. During the DevNet
conference in Montreal, the IPsec maintainer of Linux mentioned that he
is he waiting to have this as an RFC before implementing it. This does
not necessarily means that will be its highest priority.   There are
implementations based in C/Python scripts as well as ongoing
implementations on Riot.


  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

Tero Kivinen is the document shepherd and Eric Rescorla 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.

The document has been discussed with the WG. The current version has
already been reviewed by the AD. We believe the document is ready.

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


(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.


(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.

No 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.

The author has confirmed that they are not aware of any undisclosed IPR
associated with this document.

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

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?

There is a WG consensus. Three different ways has been proposed to the
WG and the current consensus regarding the design and the IKEv2

Three ways were proposed to implement it:
* An Implicit IV Transform Transform Type.
* An Implicit IV Transform ID ( the solution considered)
* An Implicit IV Transform Attribute

Regarding the implicit IV protocol, there has been some discussions for
not using implicit iv with IKEv2 or with multicast. These scenario have
clearly been excluded in the current document.

(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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

No nits found.

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

The document does not need additional reviews.

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


(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?


(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.


(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.


(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 5226).

Code points have already been allocated by IANA.

(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.

Code points have already been allocated by IANA.

(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, etc.

checks are those provided by the submission web pages: nits.