IPsec Cluster Problem Statement
RFC 6027
Yes
No Objection
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
INTRODUCTION, paragraph 4: > An agreed terminology, problem statement and > requirements will allow the IPSECME WG to consider development of > IPsec/IKEv2 mechanisms to simplify cluster implementations. Suggest to remove text that talks about IETF WGs, which are after all ephemeral, from this document before publication as an RFC.
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) Yes
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
I think some of the references should be Normative.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Harrington; former steering group member) No Objection
1) in 3.7, I think it would make the document easier to read if you spelled out the LS and HS acronyms. 2) "the other half of the flow" - s/the the/the/ is "the other half" a response, or ...; can you clarify, "the other half" doesn't seem very specific. 3) in 3.8 "this looks weird". I don't think the problem is that it looks weird; it's that the peer might respond to the fact that it looks weird and do something like discard it or filter it, and this would cause problems. Simply saying "it looks weird" doesn't really describe this in a clear and unambiguous manner. 4) "Reply packets might arrive ..." I think this should be discussed in the security considerations 5) in section 2, PAD needs to be spelled out or referenced. 6) aren't RFC2119, IKEv2bis and 4306 normative? Others may be also, but these seem obvious.
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Yes) Recuse