Skip to main content

Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) Notification Status Types for IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence
RFC 8983

Yes

(Benjamin Kaduk)

No Objection

Alvaro Retana
Martin Duke
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Martin Vigoureux)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Erik Kline Yes

Comment (2020-12-16 for -05)
[[ comments/questions ]]

[ section 5 ]

* I concur with Eric V. w.r.t. MUST vs SHOULD for dualstack initiators.
  As written it seems to me like it might be overspecified.

* I'm confused about the last entry in the table.  If there's a policy
  restriction to only a single address family, are both IP4 and IP6
  _ALLOWED returned?  Instead of "4,6" should this be "4|6"?

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Martin Duke No Objection

Murray Kucherawy No Objection

Comment (2020-12-13 for -05)
In Section 4, "repsonser" should be "responder".

Robert Wilton No Objection

Comment (2020-12-14 for -05)
Hi Med,

Thanks for this document.  I found it pretty easy to read and follow.

One minor comments and a nit.

Minor comment:

IPv4v6 PDP-Context
 - This wasn't defined in the document, and it wasn't obvious to me what this is.  Perhaps have a definition or reference to the definition in the terminology section might be helpful.

Nit:

 attaches the network => attaches to the network

Regards,
Rob

Roman Danyliw No Objection

Comment (2020-12-15 for -05)
Thank you to Sean Turner for the SECDIR review.

Éric Vyncke No Objection

Comment (2020-12-14 for -05)
Bonjour Med,

Thank you for the work put into this document. The shepherd write-up is really terse but reflects that it was a rough consensus.

Please find below  some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated), and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Abstract --
The one-line abstract does not really explain/summarize what this document is about. E.g., nothing is mentioned about 3GPP origin. Expanding the abstract with something like "by allowing the responder to signal to the initiator which address families are supported".

-- Section 1 --
The sentence "When the UE  attaches the network using a WLAN access by means of IKEv2 capabilities, there are no equivalent notification codes ..." looks cryptic to me. What is the link with WLAN access and IKEv2 ?

-- Section 5 --
   "If a dual-stack initiator requests only an IPv6 prefix (or an IPv4
   address) but only receives IP4_ALLOWED (or IP6_ALLOWED) notification
   status type from the responder, the initiator MUST send a request for
   IPv4 address(es) (or IPv6 prefix(es))."
   
Is it really a "MUST" and not a "SHOULD" or even "MAY" ? A constrained UE may have IPv6-only applications and, even if OS is dual-stack, not bothers to have a useless IPv4 address.

The paragraph after this one mimics the 3GPP PDP behavior, but, does it make sense for IKEv2 ?


== NITS ==

In several places, the word "responder" is misspelled.

In some places, a ':' is followed by a capitalized word which looks weird to my French-reading eyes...

(Benjamin Kaduk; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -05)

                            

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -05)

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -05)

                            

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -05)

                            

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -05)

                            

(Martin Vigoureux; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -05)