Skip to main content

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

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
04 (System) Notify list changed from ,  to (None)
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Bert Wijnen
2004-02-20
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2004-02-19
04 (System) RFC published
2003-11-24
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2003-11-24
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2003-11-24
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2003-11-24
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2003-11-21
04 Amy Vezza Removed from agenda for telechat - 2003-11-20 by Amy Vezza
2003-11-20
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2003-11-20
04 (System) [Ballot Position Update] Position for Steven Bellovin has been changed to No Objection from No Record
2003-11-20
04 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bert Wijnen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Bert Wijnen
2003-11-19
04 Margaret Cullen
[Ballot comment]
Tiny nit, easily fixed in an RFC editor note:

Abstract
   
  This document describes the method detecting a dead IKE peer …
[Ballot comment]
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
2003-11-19
04 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Margaret Wasserman
2003-11-10
04 Russ Housley Placed on agenda for telechat - 2003-11-20 by Russ Housley
2003-11-10
04 Russ Housley State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Russ Housley
2003-11-10
04 Russ Housley
An updated Internet-Draft has been posted that addresses the concerns raised last month.  I am putting this on the agenda for the next telechat to …
An updated Internet-Draft has been posted that addresses the concerns raised last month.  I am putting this on the agenda for the next telechat to confirm that they are completely resolved.
2003-10-23
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-dpd-04.txt
2003-10-20
04 Amy Vezza Removed from agenda for telechat - 2003-10-16 by Amy Vezza
2003-10-16
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2003-10-16
04 Bert Wijnen
[Ballot comment]
US/American slang hits us in protocol design:
Page 7:
      Notify                      …
[Ballot comment]
US/American slang hits us in protocol design:
Page 7:
      Notify                      Message Value
      R-U-THERE                  36136
      R-U-THERE-ACK              36137

Aaarrrggghh
2003-10-16
04 Bert Wijnen
[Ballot discuss]
- Page 8
  - SPI Size (2 octets)
  But the diagram above shows it as 1 octet
  - Notification Data …
[Ballot discuss]
- Page 8
  - SPI Size (2 octets)
  But the diagram above shows it as 1 octet
  - Notification Data (4 octets)
  But the diagram shows it as multiple sets of 4 octets
2003-10-16
04 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for  by Bert Wijnen
2003-10-15
04 Ted Hardie [Ballot comment]
Why is this informational?  Section 6 looks like protocol specification to me, and this a working
group document, so I'm a bit surprised.
2003-10-15
04 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Ted Hardie
2003-10-15
04 Steven Bellovin
[Ballot comment]
This is very close to a DISCUSS...

As I understand the situation, the document describes current practice,
rather than defining new protocol elements. …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2003-10-15
04 Amy Vezza [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Amy Vezza
2003-10-15
04 Russ Housley
This document describes what people do.  It is an Informational to just document current practice.  The group does not want to make revisions, even if …
This document describes what people do.  It is an Informational to just document current practice.  The group does not want to make revisions, even if better mechanisms are discovered.  Changes would mean that the document does not describe what people already do.

Please add a sentence or two of explanatory text to the Introduction.
2003-10-02
04 Randy Bush [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Randy Bush
2003-10-02
04 Ned Freed [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ned Freed
2003-10-01
04 Russ Housley State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Russ Housley
2003-10-01
04 Russ Housley Placed on agenda for telechat - 2003-10-16 by Russ Housley
2003-10-01
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Russ Housley
2003-10-01
04 Russ Housley Ballot has been issued by Russ Housley
2003-10-01
04 Russ Housley Created "Approve" ballot
2003-10-01
04 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2003-10-01
04 (System) Last call text was added
2003-10-01
04 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2003-09-28
04 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system
2003-09-14
04 Michael Lee Last call sent
2003-09-14
04 Michael Lee State Changes to In Last Call from In Last Call by Michael Lee
2003-07-14
04 Russ Housley State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Housley, Russ
2003-07-14
04 Russ Housley State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Housley, Russ
2003-07-14
04 Russ Housley State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Housley, Russ
2003-07-14
04 Russ Housley State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching  :: Revised ID Needed by Housley, Russ
2003-05-29
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-dpd-03.txt
2003-04-10
04 Russ Housley State Changes to AD is watching  :: Revised ID Needed from Publication Requested by Housley, Russ
2003-04-10
04 Russ Housley
Draft does not have a security considerations section.  Section 7 requires a sequence number, but it is not clear why a random nonce is not …
Draft does not have a security considerations section.  Section 7 requires a sequence number, but it is not clear why a random nonce is not sufficient.  A random nonce does not require state at both peers, but the proposed sequence number mechanism does require state at both peers.
2003-04-10
04 Russ Housley State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching  :: Revised ID Needed by Housley, Russ
2003-03-17
04 Russ Housley Shepherding AD has been changed to Housley, Russ from Schiller, Jeff
2003-03-04
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-dpd-02.txt
2003-02-13
04 Jeffrey Schiller State Changes to AD is watching  :: Revised ID Needed from Publication Requested by Schiller, Jeff
2003-02-13
04 Jeffrey Schiller Draft Added by Schiller, Jeff
2002-11-22
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-dpd-01.txt
2001-07-06
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-dpd-00.txt