IKEv2 Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec
draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-12

[Ballot discuss]
Section 3.1.2

I found the discussion of MAX_CID confusing.  MAX_CID is two octets in length and has values
0..16383 and "indicates the maximum value of a context Identifier".  It then notes that
zero indicates a single context.  Does that mean that one indicates two contexts, and the value
16383 indicates a maximum of 16384 contexts?

[Ballot discuss]
I have reviewed draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-10, and have
a couple of questions/concerns that I'd like to discuss before
recommending approval of the document:

- Section 5: the IANA policy here is quite unclear; the text first
says "Designated Expert" -- but then talks about requiring a published
RFC (which would suggest the policy is "RFC Required"), and then about
IETF Last Call (which would suggest the policy is "IETF Review", since
not all RFCs go through IETF Last Call).

- Section 3.1: "ROHC channel parameters MUST be signaled at either
the establishment or rekeying of a Child SA."  The "either..or"
construct is a bit unclear -- if ROHC channel parameters were
signalled when the Child SA was established, do they have to be
repeated when rekeying it?

(Probably the intent is "yes"; in that case, I'd suggest phrasing like
"ROHC channel parameters MUST be signaled separately for each
ROHC-enabled IPsec SA. Specifically, a new Notify message type MUST be
included in the IKE_AUTH and CREATE_CHILD_SA exchanges whenever a new
ROHC-enabled IPsec SA is created, or an existing one is rekeyed.")

IANA questions/comments:

Please see the questions associated with Action 2.

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments:

ACTION 1:

New assignment in the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types - Status Types"
registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters

Value NOTIFY MESSAGES - STATUS TYPES Reference
------------ -------------------------------- ---------
TBD ROHC_SUPPORTED [RFC-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-09]


ACTION 2:

New registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters

Registry Name: ROHC Attribute Types
Reference: [RFC-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-09]
Registration Procedures: Specification Required

Value range: unsigned integer 6 bits (0-65535)

Value ROHC Attribute Type Reference
--------- ------------------------------------------- ------------
0 RESERVED [RFC-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-09]
1 Maximum Context Identifier (MAX_CID)
[RFC-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-09]
2 ROHC Profile (ROHC_PROFILE)
[RFC-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-09]
3 ROHC Integrity Algorithm (ROHC_INTEG)
[RFC-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-09]
4 ROHC ICV Length in bytes (ROHC_ICV_LEN)
[RFC-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-09]
5 Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit (MRRU)
[RFC-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-09]
6-65535 Unassigned

QUESTION: IANA Considerations section defines the initial content of the
registry with the first line as 0 and last line as "6-65536". However,
packet format shows 16 bits. Therefore, shall the max value be 65535
instead of 65536? (Registry above was defined on the assumption that
max value is 65535).

QUESTION: Section 2.1.1 defines the ROHC Attribute Type as 2 octets with
the most significant bit in the field as the Attribute Format (AF) bit.
Section 2.1.2 lists the 5 Types with AF=1. Since AF is most significant
bit, this means the Attribute Type should be in the range of
32768-65536. However, the requested registry values are in the low
range, as if AF=0. Could you please confirm the values requested, as
specified in the proto registry above?

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Carl Knutsson is the Document Shepherd. The document has
been personally reviewed by Document Shepherd and is ready
to be published as Proposed Standard.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

Yes, it has been reviewed by members of both ipsecme and
rohc WGs. The Document Shepherd have no concerns about the
depth or breadth of the reviews.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No concerns.

(1.e) 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 strong consensus behind the document.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No conflicts or display of extreme discontent.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes, No.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Yes.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

Yes.

(1.k) 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

As part of the ROHCoIPsec framework, this document defines
extensions to Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) to
signal ROHC parameters between IPsec peers.


Working Group Summary

The document represents rough consensus of the working group.

Document Quality

The document have been reviewed extensively by both members
from the ipsecme and the rohc working groups. During the WG
Last-Call the document was reviewed by the committed WG
reviewers Robert A. Stangarone Jr. and Yoav Nir.