A Traffic-Based Method of Detecting Dead Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Peers
RFC 3706

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -)
No email
send info

(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

No Objection (2003-10-16)
No email
send info
US/American slang hits us in protocol design:
Page 7:
      Notify                      Message Value
      R-U-THERE                   36136
      R-U-THERE-ACK               36137

Aaarrrggghh

(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2003-11-19)
No email
send info
Tiny nit, easily fixed in an RFC editor note:

Abstract 
    
   This document describes the method detecting a dead IKE peer that is

>> s/the method detecting/a method for detecting

(Ned Freed; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Randy Bush; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Steven Bellovin; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2003-10-15)
No email
send info
This is very close to a DISCUSS...

As I understand the situation, the document describes current practice,
rather than defining new protocol elements. This is not clear in the
text of the document. (It also uses numbers from the private range,
which would be exceedingly bad for a standards-track protocol.) The
fourth paragraph of the Introduction, which begins "To this end",
should start something like this:

                To this end, a number of vendors have implemented their own
                approach to dead peer detection. This document describes how
                they detect peer liveliness without needing ...

The abstract (and perhaps the title) should probably have similar changes.

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2003-10-15 for -)
No email
send info
Why is this informational?  Section 6 looks like protocol specification to me, and this a working
group document, so I'm a bit surprised.