Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) Notification Status Types for IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-06
Yes
(Benjamin Kaduk)
No Objection
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Barry Leiba)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Martin Duke)
(Martin Vigoureux)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Erik Kline
Yes
Comment
(2020-12-16 for -05)
Sent
[[ comments/questions ]] [ section 5 ] * I concur with Eric V. w.r.t. MUST vs SHOULD for dualstack initiators. As written it seems to me like it might be overspecified. * I'm confused about the last entry in the table. If there's a policy restriction to only a single address family, are both IP4 and IP6 _ALLOWED returned? Instead of "4,6" should this be "4|6"?
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Comment
(2020-12-13 for -05)
Sent
In Section 4, "repsonser" should be "responder".
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment
(2020-12-15 for -05)
Not sent
Thank you to Sean Turner for the SECDIR review.
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment
(2020-12-14 for -05)
Sent
Bonjour Med, Thank you for the work put into this document. The shepherd write-up is really terse but reflects that it was a rough consensus. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated), and some nits. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == -- Abstract -- The one-line abstract does not really explain/summarize what this document is about. E.g., nothing is mentioned about 3GPP origin. Expanding the abstract with something like "by allowing the responder to signal to the initiator which address families are supported". -- Section 1 -- The sentence "When the UE attaches the network using a WLAN access by means of IKEv2 capabilities, there are no equivalent notification codes ..." looks cryptic to me. What is the link with WLAN access and IKEv2 ? -- Section 5 -- "If a dual-stack initiator requests only an IPv6 prefix (or an IPv4 address) but only receives IP4_ALLOWED (or IP6_ALLOWED) notification status type from the responder, the initiator MUST send a request for IPv4 address(es) (or IPv6 prefix(es))." Is it really a "MUST" and not a "SHOULD" or even "MAY" ? A constrained UE may have IPv6-only applications and, even if OS is dual-stack, not bothers to have a useless IPv4 address. The paragraph after this one mimics the 3GPP PDP behavior, but, does it make sense for IKEv2 ? == NITS == In several places, the word "responder" is misspelled. In some places, a ':' is followed by a capitalized word which looks weird to my French-reading eyes...
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -05)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Not sent
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Not sent
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Not sent
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Not sent
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Not sent
Martin Duke Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Not sent
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Not sent
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2020-12-14 for -05)
Sent
Hi Med, Thanks for this document. I found it pretty easy to read and follow. One minor comments and a nit. Minor comment: IPv4v6 PDP-Context - This wasn't defined in the document, and it wasn't obvious to me what this is. Perhaps have a definition or reference to the definition in the terminology section might be helpful. Nit: attaches the network => attaches to the network Regards, Rob