Minimal Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2) Initiator Implementation
RFC 7815
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) Yes
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
Thank you for this well-written and much needed document.
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes
I had a discuss ballot on this. I'd still like to see the algorithm-set described here omit some of the lower security levels but I accept that this has had review and/or that changes to BCP-like text really ought be done in other places first. Sorry, for being slow with getting the discussion closed.
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
I agree with Ben's DISCUSS ballot. It seems to me that this document is an Applicability Statement for 7296.
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
[Update: I am convinced that the standards track vs informational question was a red-herring, and therefore cleared the DISCUSS. I do still think that the current approach risks effectively forking the protocol. But I think I've made my point and leave it to the respective parties to do the Right Thing, whatever they see that to be.] I question the choice of copying IKEv2 text forward into this document, at least without clearly marking (and citing) the copied text. What happens if 7296 gets updated or obsoleted? It seems like that would effectively fork the protocol. And since this draft does not seem to distinguish copied text from new text, I wonder if the other authors of 7296 should be considered authors of this document.
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
Tim Wicinksi performed the opsdir review.
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
Nit that I'm sure the RFC editor would have caught: Last paragraph at the bottom of Page 4, so is repeated: "Minimal implementations only need to support the role of initiator, so so it" I'm fine with this being informational since it just describes a proof of concept implementation specific to lwig use cases of an existing standards track RFC. It does explicitly state that the referenced RFC is normative and any updates to that RFC would likely not apply to this one unless an updated POC is done and that might mean a new draft (I suspect).
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
I agree with Ben's question about copying text from a normative reference without clearly tagging it. Clear tagging seems like a good idea.
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection