TCP Encapsulation of IKE and IPsec Packets
draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-05
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2022-04-26
|
05 | (System) | Changed action holders to Valery Smyslov, Roman Danyliw, Tommy Pauly (IESG state changed) |
|
2022-04-26
|
05 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
|
2022-04-26
|
05 | Roman Danyliw | AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/KtobySx8DaEImzAp0XN8WxaS2co/ |
|
2022-03-24
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | 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 … 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 1 November 2019. (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? Proposed Standard as indicated on the title page header and in the datatracker. (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 describes a method to transport Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKE) and IPsec packets over a TCP connection for traversing network middleboxes that may block IKE negotiation over UDP. This method, referred to as "TCP encapsulation", involves sending both IKE packets for Security Association establishment and Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) packets over a TCP connection. This method is intended to be used as a fallback option when IKE cannot be negotiated over UDP. TCP encapsulation for IKE and IPsec was defined in [RFC8229]. This document updates the specification for TCP encapsulation by including additional clarifications obtained during implementation and deployment of this method. This documents obsoletes RFC8229. Working Group Summary: This work started in 2018 with document "Clarifications and Implementation Guidelines for using TCP Encapsulation in IKEv2", but during the process IPsecME WG decided to make bis document of RFC8229 instead as some of the clarifications were actually modifying the protocol. The first version of the rfc8229bis document was published as individual draft in May 2020 as individual draft, and it was adopted by the WG in April 2021. Document Quality: There are several implementations of the RFC8229 and during those implementations few issues were found that required modifications. Because of that this RFC8229bis document was created, when it was obvious that simple clarifications are not enough. There are already some implementations implementing changes described in this bis document. Personnel: Shepherd: Tero Kivinen Responsible AD: Roman Danyliw (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 and found it ready. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. The document was a subject of several reviews in the WG. (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. Some transport area review might be needed, but as this document uses TCP without modifications there should not be big issues there. (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. None. (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? All authors confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to this draft. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosure has been filed that reference this document. (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 WG 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. Idnits reports few warnings, all of them seem to be false positive. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None are applicable. (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. (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (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. Yes. This document will obsolete the RFC8229. (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). This document requests the IANA to update references for already allocated TCP Port Number to this document. Requests to IANA are consistent with document's body. (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. No new registries are defined by this document. (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. No automated checks are applicable. (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? The document contains no YANG module. |
|
2022-03-23
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Roman Danyliw |
|
2022-03-23
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | 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 … 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 1 November 2019. (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? Proposed Standard as indicated on the title page header and in the datatracker. (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 describes a method to transport Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKE) and IPsec packets over a TCP connection for traversing network middleboxes that may block IKE negotiation over UDP. This method, referred to as "TCP encapsulation", involves sending both IKE packets for Security Association establishment and Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) packets over a TCP connection. This method is intended to be used as a fallback option when IKE cannot be negotiated over UDP. TCP encapsulation for IKE and IPsec was defined in [RFC8229]. This document updates the specification for TCP encapsulation by including additional clarifications obtained during implementation and deployment of this method. This documents obsoletes RFC8229. Working Group Summary: This work started in 2018 with document "Clarifications and Implementation Guidelines for using TCP Encapsulation in IKEv2", but during the process IPsecME WG decided to make bis document of RFC8229 instead as some of the clarifications were actually modifying the protocol. The first version of the rfc8229bis document was published as individual draft in May 2020 as individual draft, and it was adopted by the WG in April 2021. Document Quality: There are several implementations of the RFC8229 and during those implementations few issues were found that required modifications. Because of that this RFC8229bis document was created, when it was obvious that simple clarifications are not enough. There are already some implementations implementing changes described in this bis document. Personnel: Shepherd: Tero Kivinen Responsible AD: Benjamin Kaduk (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 and found it ready. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. The document was a subject of several reviews in the WG. (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. Some transport area review might be needed, but as this document uses TCP without modifications there should not be big issues there. (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. None. (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? All authors confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to this draft. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosure has been filed that reference this document. (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 WG 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. Idnits reports few warnings, all of them seem to be false positive. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None are applicable. (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. (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (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. Yes. This document will obsolete the RFC8229. (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). This document requests the IANA to update references for already allocated TCP Port Number to this document. Requests to IANA are consistent with document's body. (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. No new registries are defined by this document. (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. No automated checks are applicable. (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? The document contains no YANG module. |
|
2022-03-23
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Responsible AD changed to Benjamin Kaduk |
|
2022-03-23
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2022-03-23
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
|
2022-03-23
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2022-03-23
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2022-03-23
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2022-03-23
|
05 | Valery Smyslov | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-05.txt |
|
2022-03-23
|
05 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Valery Smyslov) |
|
2022-03-23
|
05 | Valery Smyslov | Uploaded new revision |
|
2022-03-23
|
04 | Valery Smyslov | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-04.txt |
|
2022-03-23
|
04 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Valery Smyslov) |
|
2022-03-23
|
04 | Valery Smyslov | Uploaded new revision |
|
2022-03-22
|
03 | Valery Smyslov | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-03.txt |
|
2022-03-22
|
03 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Valery Smyslov) |
|
2022-03-22
|
03 | Valery Smyslov | Uploaded new revision |
|
2022-03-20
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | 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 … 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 1 November 2019. (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? Proposed Standard as indicated on the title page header and in the datatracker. (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 describes a method to transport Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKE) and IPsec packets over a TCP connection for traversing network middleboxes that may block IKE negotiation over UDP. This method, referred to as "TCP encapsulation", involves sending both IKE packets for Security Association establishment and Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) packets over a TCP connection. This method is intended to be used as a fallback option when IKE cannot be negotiated over UDP. TCP encapsulation for IKE and IPsec was defined in [RFC8229]. This document updates the specification for TCP encapsulation by including additional clarifications obtained during implementation and deployment of this method. This documents obsoletes RFC8229. Working Group Summary: This work started in 2018 with document "Clarifications and Implementation Guidelines for using TCP Encapsulation in IKEv2", but during the process IPsecME WG decided to make bis document of RFC8229 instead as some of the clarifications were actually modifying the protocol. The first version of the rfc8229bis document was published as individual draft in May 2020 as individual draft, and it was adopted by the WG in April 2021. Document Quality: There are several implementations of the RFC8229 and during those implementations few issues were found that required modifications. Because of that this RFC8229bis document was created, when it was obvious that simple clarifications are not enough. There are already some implementations implementing changes described in this bis document. Personnel: Shepherd: Tero Kivinen Responsible AD: Benjamin Kaduk (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 and found it ready. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. The document was a subject of several reviews in the WG. (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. Some transport area review might be needed, but as this document uses TCP without modifications there should not be big issues there. (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. None. (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? All authors confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to this draft. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosure has been filed that reference this document. (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 WG 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. Idnits reports few warnings, all of them seem to be false positive. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None are applicable. (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. (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (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. Yes. This document will obsolete the RFC8229. (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). This document requests the IANA to update references for already allocated TCP Port Number to this document. Requests to IANA are consistent with document's body. (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. No new registries are defined by this document. (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. No automated checks are applicable. (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? The document contains no YANG module. |
|
2022-03-20
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Notification list changed to kivinen@iki.fi because the document shepherd was set |
|
2022-03-20
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Document shepherd changed to Tero Kivinen |
|
2022-03-11
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
|
2022-01-19
|
02 | Valery Smyslov | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-02.txt |
|
2022-01-19
|
02 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Valery Smyslov) |
|
2022-01-19
|
02 | Valery Smyslov | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-11-08
|
01 | Tero Kivinen | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2021-10-25
|
01 | Valery Smyslov | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-01.txt |
|
2021-10-25
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-10-25
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, Valery Smyslov <svan@elvis.ru> |
|
2021-10-25
|
01 | Valery Smyslov | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-04-29
|
00 | Yoav Nir | This document now replaces draft-smyslov-ipsecme-rfc8229bis instead of None |
|
2021-04-29
|
00 | Valery Smyslov | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-00.txt |
|
2021-04-29
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
|
2021-04-28
|
00 | Valery Smyslov | Set submitter to "Valery Smyslov <svan@elvis.ru>", replaces to draft-smyslov-ipsecme-rfc8229bis and sent approval email to group chairs: ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2021-04-28
|
00 | Valery Smyslov | Uploaded new revision |