Wrapped Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) for Traffic Visibility
RFC 5840
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
12 | (System) | Notify list changed from ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
12 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Jari Arkko |
|
2012-08-22
|
12 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk |
|
2012-08-22
|
12 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu |
|
2012-08-22
|
12 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
|
2010-04-21
|
12 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
|
2010-04-21
|
12 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 5840' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2010-04-20
|
12 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2010-02-01
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2010-01-28
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2010-01-28
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2010-01-27
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2010-01-27
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-01-26
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2010-01-26
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2010-01-26
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2010-01-26
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-01-26
|
12 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk |
|
2010-01-26
|
12 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk |
|
2010-01-24
|
12 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
|
2010-01-22
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Jari Arkko |
|
2010-01-20
|
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-12.txt |
|
2009-12-20
|
12 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-12-18
|
12 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-12-17 |
|
2009-12-17
|
12 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
|
2009-12-17
|
12 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-12-17
|
12 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot comment] I am entering an abstain position on this due to that it doesn't appear to be a well enough motivated usage of an … [Ballot comment] I am entering an abstain position on this due to that it doesn't appear to be a well enough motivated usage of an protocol number. The protocol number space is quite limited and this is basically a duplication of the ESP one. Yes, it attempts to provide some additional functionality. Due to the expressed limited support and lack of implementation I would have no problem if this proposal skipped requesting an protocol ID of itself and instead always relied on the UDP encapsulation. That way it only consume one code point from a IPsec specific range, that also is almost not utilized at all today. |
|
2009-12-17
|
12 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
|
2009-12-17
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] By the way, I agree with Russ' Discuss. |
|
2009-12-17
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] I'm generally supportive of this type of an extension, but I had two technical problems that I wanted to talk about before recommending … [Ballot discuss] I'm generally supportive of this type of an extension, but I had two technical problems that I wanted to talk about before recommending the approval of this specification. The first issue is the design for extensibility. The design is problematic, as acknowledged by the draft when it says that middleboxes may have to drop traffic with unrecognized WESP version numbers or that intermediate nodes dealing with unknown reserved bits are not necessarily able to correctly parse packets. The design seems suspect, and I'd like to understand why this design was chosen. Basic requirements for extensibility in most protocols include the ability to add information without endangering the ability of protocol participants to parse existing information. I believe this could actually be achieved with a different design. In one design you would simply have a flags byte but no version number. The basic format would always have a pointer to the offset where the cleartext packet begins, and this would never be changed by extensions. New flags could define additional information elsewhere in the packet (between the start of the WESP header and the offset where the actual packet begins, for instance) and this wouldn't affect intermediaries that have no need for the additional information. Another design could use the same rules about the flags but add a version number if truly incompatible changes have to be made. Then again, the only truly incompatible change that I can think of is "there is no cleartext packet", and IMHO, that's not a proper extension of WESP. The second issue is that Section 2 claims that the WESP version numbers should be negotiated over a control channel. However, Section 2.3 does not negotiate WESP version numbers, only the use of WESP. |
|
2009-12-17
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2009-12-16
|
12 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
|
2009-12-16
|
12 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] The primary motivation for this work is to allow a middlebox to peek into integrity protected (but not encrypted) IPsec packets. Some … [Ballot discuss] The primary motivation for this work is to allow a middlebox to peek into integrity protected (but not encrypted) IPsec packets. Some integrity-check algorithms use an IV, a middlebox cannot alway know where the payload starts. Unlike the IPsec peer that negotiated the algorithm in the IKE exchange, the middlebox does not know which integrity-check algorithm is in use, and thus doe s not know if an IV is present or how long it might be. The document allows the encapsulation of encrypted IPsec traffic. Why? I cannot see the justification for the use if WESP at all if the IPsec traffic is encrypted. The document says: > > ... by preserving the body of the existing ESP packet format, a > compliant implementation can simply add in the new header, without > needing to change the body of the packet. > The figures in Section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 show otherwise. The ESP ICV is replaced by a WESP ICV. ESP processing is changed, and I cannot see the justification for it. This is explained by: > > In the diagrams below, "WESP ICV" refers to the ICV computation as > modified by this specification. Namely, the ESP ICV computation is > augmented to include the four octets that constitute the WESP header. > Otherwise, the ICV computation is as specified by ESP [RFC4303]. > So, in fact, WESP is not an optional encapsulation of ESP. It is an alternative to ESP with some duplicated fields (such as Next Header) and pointers into the actual integrity-protected payload. When talking about IKEv2 negotiation, the document says: > > The notification, USE_WESP_MODE (value TBD) MAY be included in a > request message that also includes an SA payload requesting a > CHILD_SA using ESP. > USE_WESP_MODE MUST be included if one wants to use WESP, right? The use of MAY here leads me to think that there are other ways to select the use of WESP in the IKEv2 exchange. |
|
2009-12-16
|
12 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2009-12-16
|
12 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] (1) The abstract states "there is no way to differentiate between encrypted and unencrypted payloads", but section 1.2 notes that this differentiation can … [Ballot comment] (1) The abstract states "there is no way to differentiate between encrypted and unencrypted payloads", but section 1.2 notes that this differentiation can be achieved using heuristics. This seems to be in conflict. (2) In section 1.2, the text preceding the list states "there are two ways ... to distinguish between encrypted and unencrypted ESP traffic". Something tells me there are other possibilities. (3) section 2, paragraph beginning "Padding Present (P), 1 bit". The following text is about the padding field rather than the flag. I think both are needed, and suggest moving the padding text to follow the discussion of the reserved bits. (4) a description of how the padding field will be used for extensibility, and any limitations on the use of that field, should be documented here. (5) Section 2, next to last paragraph: is it really optional to extend the standard ESP header by 8 octets for IPv6? (6) Security considerations, paragraph 1: s/should be used to in determining/should be used in determining/ |
|
2009-12-16
|
12 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] This is a discuss-discuss. I was surprised to see that the IANA rules for the four reserved bits are "Specification Required". Given the … [Ballot discuss] This is a discuss-discuss. I was surprised to see that the IANA rules for the four reserved bits are "Specification Required". Given the small number of bits and the unlimited imagination of the IPsec community, aren't we in danger of using the bits up rather quickly? I think that IETF consensus would be less risky. |
|
2009-12-16
|
12 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
|
2009-12-16
|
12 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
|
2009-12-16
|
12 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
|
2009-12-15
|
12 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] I plan to clear this DISCUSS after the IESG debates the question I am raising: The approval write-up includes the following: > We … [Ballot discuss] I plan to clear this DISCUSS after the IESG debates the question I am raising: The approval write-up includes the following: > We are not aware of any implementations. Neither do we know of any concrete vendor plans to implement this specification. One ma wonder - whys is a document discussed and approved on standards track of there are no known implementations and no known plans for implementation |
|
2009-12-15
|
12 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] I plan to clear this DISCUSS after the IESG debates the question I am raising: The approval write-up includes the following: |
|
2009-12-15
|
12 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-12-14
|
12 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2009-12-13
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
|
2009-12-13
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] 4. IANA Considerations The USE_WESP_MODE notification number is assigned out of the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types - Status Types" registry's 16384- … [Ballot comment] 4. IANA Considerations The USE_WESP_MODE notification number is assigned out of the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types - Status Types" registry's 16384- 40959 (Expert Review) range: TBD. I assume the Expert Reviewer Okeyed this registration already? |
|
2009-12-09
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Sean Turner. |
|
2009-12-01
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Pasi Eronen |
|
2009-12-01
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-12-17 by Pasi Eronen |
|
2009-12-01
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Pasi Eronen |
|
2009-12-01
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | Ballot has been issued by Pasi Eronen |
|
2009-12-01
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2009-11-30
|
12 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2009-11-30
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-11.txt |
|
2009-11-27
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Pasi Eronen |
|
2009-11-09
|
12 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2009-11-09
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-10.txt |
|
2009-10-30
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Pasi Eronen |
|
2009-10-30
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | Last Call Summary According to my notes, the following comments were received: - My remaining AD review comments: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/current/msg04921.html - IANA's review (all OK): https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility/comment/103976/ … Last Call Summary According to my notes, the following comments were received: - My remaining AD review comments: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/current/msg04921.html - IANA's review (all OK): https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility/comment/103976/ - Pete McCann's Gen-ART review: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg04703.html It looks like Pete's review needs at least a reply (and possibly some changes), and my comments needs some small changes. Authors, can you take a lead in replying to Pete, and proposing changes? (And I've changed the state to "::Revised ID Needed") |
|
2009-10-28
|
12 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2009-10-26
|
12 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will perform the following actions: ACTION 1: make the following assignments in the "Protocol Numbers" registry at … IANA comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will perform the following actions: ACTION 1: make the following assignments in the "Protocol Numbers" registry at http://iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml Decimal Keyword Protocol Reference ------- ------- -------- --------- TBD WESP Wrapped Encapsulating Security Payload [RFC-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-09] ACTION 2: make the following assignments in the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types - Status Types" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters Value NOTIFY MESSAGES - STATUS TYPES Reference ----- -------------------------------- --------- TBD USE_WESP_MODE [RFC-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-09] ACTION 3: make the following assignments in the "Security Parameters Index (SPI) Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/spi-numbers Number Description Reference -------- --------------- --------- 2 WESP [RFC-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-09] ACTION 4: create the following registry and sub-registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD Registry Name: WESP Flags Registration Procedures: Specification Required Value range = 8bits Bit Description Reference ----- ------------------- --------- 0-1 WESP Version [RFC-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-09] 2 Encrypted Payload [RFC-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-09] 3 Extended header [RFC-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-09] 4-7 Reserved [RFC-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-09] Registry Name: Version Number Registration Procedures: Standard Action Value range = 2bits unsigned integer Value Description Reference ----- ----------- --------- 0 [RFC-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-09] 1-3 Unassigned |
|
2009-10-22
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sean Turner |
|
2009-10-22
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sean Turner |
|
2009-10-16
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Yaron Sheffer was rejected |
|
2009-10-16
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
|
2009-10-16
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
|
2009-10-14
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2009-10-14
|
12 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2009-10-14
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | Last Call was requested by Pasi Eronen |
|
2009-10-14
|
12 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2009-10-14
|
12 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2009-10-14
|
12 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2009-10-14
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Pasi Eronen |
|
2009-10-07
|
12 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2009-10-07
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-09.txt |
|
2009-09-17
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Pasi Eronen |
|
2009-09-15
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Pasi Eronen |
|
2009-09-15
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | [Note]: 'Yaron Sheffer (yaronf@checkpoint.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Pasi Eronen |
|
2009-09-03
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Document name: Wrapped ESP for Traffic Visibility, draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-08.txt (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version … Document name: Wrapped ESP for Traffic Visibility, draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-08.txt (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? The document shepherd is Yaron Sheffer, co-chair of the ipsecme WG. I have reviewed it and believe it is ready for publication. (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? The document has had in-depth review within the ipsecme WG. I am not aware of any non-WG reviews. I do not have any concerns about these 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, the document lies fully within the ipsecme WG's area of expertise. (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. I have no such concerns. There have been no IPR disclosures. (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 wide WG consensus. (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, there were no such conflicts. (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, I have personally verified that. No formal review criteria are applicable. (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]. No issues identified. (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? The document defines a new IP Protocol Number. In addition, it defines a new IKEv2 notification, and one new IANA registry. There are no issues with any of them. I expect the Responsible AD to request the existing IKE/IPsec IANA expert to extend his services to the current draft. (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? There are no such sections. (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 Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document describes the Wrapped Encapsulating Security Payload (WESP) protocol, which is based on the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) protocol and is designed to allow intermediate devices to ascertain if ESP with null encryption is being employed and if so, inspect the IPsec packets for network monitoring and access control functions. The mechanism described in this document can be used to easily disambiguate ESP-NULL from encrypted ESP packets, without compromising on the security provided by ESP. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Early on there was prolonged WG discussion about the relative merits of the Wrapped ESP solution for identifying ESP-null traffic, compared to heuristic methods for traffic inspection. Eventually the WG reached consensus on the usefulness of having both solutions published, with the heuristics solution targeted for the interim period until WESP is widely deployed. This consensus is documented in both protocol documents. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? We are not aware of any implementations. Neither do we know of any concrete vendor plans to implement this specification. |
|
2009-09-03
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Draft Added by Amy Vezza in state Publication Requested |
|
2009-09-03
|
12 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'Yaron Sheffer (yaronf@checkpoint.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2009-09-01
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-08.txt |
|
2009-08-10
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-07.txt |
|
2009-08-06
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-06.txt |
|
2009-06-24
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-05.txt |
|
2009-06-05
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-04.txt |
|
2009-06-01
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-03.txt |
|
2009-04-30
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-02.txt |
|
2009-03-09
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-01.txt |
|
2008-10-27
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-00.txt |