I-D list for IP Security Maintenance and Extensions RSS FeedDocument changesurn:uuid:0094b867-842a-5184-97cb-4bdce6e283ef2024-03-19T03:34:20-0700Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) extension for the ESP Header Compression (EHC)9815182024-03-19T00:45:35-07002024-03-19T00:45:35-0700Tero KivinenThis document now replaces <b>draft-mglt-ipsecme-ikev2-diet-esp-extension</b> instead of Nonechanged_documentietfipsecmeactiveidexistswg-docESP Header Compression Profile9815172024-03-19T00:44:58-07002024-03-19T00:44:58-0700Tero KivinenThis document now replaces <b>draft-mglt-ipsecme-diet-esp</b> instead of Nonechanged_documentietfipsecmeactiveidexistswg-docAnnouncing Supported Authentication Methods in IKEv29814652024-03-18T23:55:25-07002024-03-18T23:55:25-0700Barry LeibaRequest for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Marc Blanchetassigned_review_requestietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivereviewers-okneed-revlcsub-pubIKEv2 support for per-resource Child SAs9813672024-03-18T22:56:47-07002024-03-18T22:56:47-0700Roman DanyliwAD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/7l1XHig3X5b5U84ATf7pclYOv4s/added_commentietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pubIKEv2 support for per-resource Child SAs9813662024-03-18T22:56:47-07002024-03-18T22:56:47-0700(System)Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw, Antony Antony, Tobias Brunner, Steffen Klassert, Paul Wouters (IESG state changed)changed_action_holdersietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pubIKEv2 support for per-resource Child SAs9813652024-03-18T22:56:46-07002024-03-18T22:56:46-0700Roman DanyliwIESG state changed to <b>AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed</b> from Publication Requestedchanged_stateietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pubAnnouncing Supported Authentication Methods in IKEv29811032024-03-18T17:37:41-07002024-03-18T17:37:41-0700David DongIANA Experts State changed to <b>Expert Reviews OK</b> from Reviews assignedchanged_stateietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivereviewers-okneed-revlcsub-pubInternet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) extension for the ESP Header Compression (EHC)9810102024-03-18T15:56:13-07002024-03-18T15:56:13-0700Daniel MigaultNew version available: <b>draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-diet-esp-extension-00.txt</b>new_revisionietfipsecmeactiveidexistswg-doc This document describes an IKEv2 extension of for the ESP Header
Compression (EHC) to agree on a specific ESP Header Compression (EHC)
Context.
00Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) extension for the ESP Header Compression (EHC)9810092024-03-18T15:56:13-07002024-03-18T15:56:13-0700Tero KivinenWG -00 approvednew_submissionietfipsecmeactiveidexistswg-docESP Header Compression Profile9810062024-03-18T15:55:42-07002024-03-18T15:55:42-0700Daniel MigaultNew version available: <b>draft-ietf-ipsecme-diet-esp-00.txt</b>new_revisionietfipsecmeactiveidexistswg-doc ESP Header Compression Profile (EHCP) defines a profile to compress
communications protected with IPsec/ESP.
00ESP Header Compression Profile9810052024-03-18T15:55:42-07002024-03-18T15:55:42-0700Tero KivinenWG -00 approvednew_submissionietfipsecmeactiveidexistswg-docInternet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) extension for the ESP Header Compression (EHC)9810082024-03-18T15:54:47-07002024-03-18T15:54:47-0700Daniel MigaultSet submitter to "Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: ipsecme-chairs@ietf.orgnew_submissionietfipsecmeactiveidexistswg-docInternet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) extension for the ESP Header Compression (EHC)9810072024-03-18T15:54:35-07002024-03-18T15:54:35-0700Daniel MigaultUploaded new revisionnew_submissionietfipsecmeactiveidexistswg-docESP Header Compression Profile9810042024-03-18T15:51:17-07002024-03-18T15:51:17-0700Daniel MigaultSet submitter to "Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: ipsecme-chairs@ietf.orgnew_submissionietfipsecmeactiveidexistswg-docESP Header Compression Profile9810032024-03-18T15:51:00-07002024-03-18T15:51:00-0700Daniel MigaultUploaded new revisionnew_submissionietfipsecmeactiveidexistswg-docIKEv2 support for per-resource Child SAs9809972024-03-18T15:44:58-07002024-03-18T15:44:58-0700Tero Kivinen# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents<br><br>*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*<br><br>Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is<br>answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call<br>and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your<br>diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is<br>further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors<br>and editors to complete these checks.<br><br>Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure<br>to answer all of them.<br><br>## Document History<br><br>1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a<br> few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?<br><br> It reached broad agreement as a valid and useful solution, although some<br> raised concerns that accepting this document might mean similar related<br> drafts might not see adoption. This mostly related to the "sequence number<br> subspaces" draft, which is being worked on as part of a new ESPv4.<br><br>2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where<br> the consensus was particularly rough?<br><br> There was a long discussion about whether or not to negotiate the number of<br> multiple SAs, but it became obvious that no agreement made sense, and thus to<br> leave this open with only a local policy maximum safety.<br><br>3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If<br> so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the<br> responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this<br> questionnaire is publicly available.)<br><br> No.<br><br>4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of<br> the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated<br> plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,<br> either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere<br> (where)?<br><br> These are specified in the draft under Implementation Status.<br><br>## Additional Reviews<br><br>5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other<br> IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit<br> from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which<br> reviews took place.<br><br> Not really - this is pure IPsec / IKEv2 related.<br><br>6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,<br> such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.<br><br> N/A<br><br>7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module<br> been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and<br> formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is<br> the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module<br> comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified<br> in [RFC 8342][5]?<br><br> N/A although the ipsec yang module _could_ be updated with a multi-sa option,<br> which would be a boolean.<br><br>8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the<br> final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,<br> BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.<br><br> N/A<br><br>## Document Shepherd Checks<br><br>9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this<br> document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready<br> to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?<br><br> Yes.<br><br>10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their<br> reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified<br> and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent<br> reviews?<br><br> N/A<br><br>11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best<br> Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],<br> [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type<br> of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?<br><br> Proposed Standard. This is appropriate for a new IKEv2 property that<br> configures an IPsec stack.<br><br>12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual<br> property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To<br> the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If<br> not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links<br> to publicly-available messages when applicable.<br><br> Authors have indicated that they do not know any IPRs related to this.<br><br>13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be<br> listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page<br> is greater than five, please provide a justification.<br><br> Yes.<br><br>14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits<br> tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on<br> authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates<br> some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)<br><br> -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6982<br> (Obsoleted by RFC 7942)<br><br> This will be removed before publication anyway.<br><br>15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG<br> Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].<br><br> No.<br><br>16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did<br> the community have sufficient access to review any such normative<br> references?<br><br> N/A<br><br>17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP<br> 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,<br> list them.<br><br> No.<br><br>18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be<br> submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?<br> If so, what is the plan for their completion?<br><br> No.<br><br>19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If<br> so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs<br> listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the<br> introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document<br> where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.<br><br> No.<br><br>20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,<br> especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.<br> Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are<br> associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm<br> that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm<br> that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,<br> allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).<br><br> One new Notify payload each for the IKEv2 Notify Message Types Error and<br> Status types registry are requested. No new registries are created.<br><br>21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for<br> future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?<br> Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.<br><br> N/A<br><br>[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/<br>[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html<br>[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html<br>[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools<br>[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html<br>[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics<br>[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79<br>[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/<br>[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html<br>[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97<br>[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html<br>[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5<br>[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1<br>[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2<br>[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview<br>[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/<br>[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/<br><br>changed_documentietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pubIKEv2 support for per-resource Child SAs9809962024-03-18T15:44:58-07002024-03-18T15:44:58-0700Tero KivinenIETF WG state changed to <b>Submitted to IESG for Publication</b> from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Upchanged_stateietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pubIKEv2 support for per-resource Child SAs9809952024-03-18T15:44:58-07002024-03-18T15:44:58-0700Tero KivinenIESG state changed to <b>Publication Requested</b> from I-D Existschanged_stateietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pubIKEv2 support for per-resource Child SAs9809942024-03-18T15:44:57-07002024-03-18T15:44:57-0700(System)Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed)changed_action_holdersietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pubIKEv2 support for per-resource Child SAs9809932024-03-18T15:44:57-07002024-03-18T15:44:57-0700Tero KivinenResponsible AD changed to Roman Danyliwchanged_documentietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pubIKEv2 support for per-resource Child SAs9809922024-03-18T15:44:57-07002024-03-18T15:44:57-0700Tero KivinenDocument is now in IESG state <b>Publication Requested</b>started_iesg_processietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pubIKEv2 support for per-resource Child SAs9809912024-03-18T15:44:37-07002024-03-18T15:44:37-0700Tero KivinenTag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared.changed_documentietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pubShared Use of IPsec Tunnel in a Multi-VPN Environment9809882024-03-18T15:33:07-07002024-03-18T15:33:07-0700Tero KivinenAdded to session: IETF-119: ipsecme Tue-0530added_commentnoneactiveidexistsIKEv2 Support for Anti-Replay Status Notification9809872024-03-18T15:33:07-07002024-03-18T15:33:07-0700Tero KivinenAdded to session: IETF-119: ipsecme Tue-0530added_commentnoneactiveidexistsUsing ShangMi in the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)9809862024-03-18T15:33:07-07002024-03-18T15:33:07-0700Tero KivinenAdded to session: IETF-119: ipsecme Tue-0530added_commentnoneactiveidexistsPost-quantum Hybrid Key Exchange with ML-KEM in the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)9809852024-03-18T15:33:07-07002024-03-18T15:33:07-0700Tero KivinenAdded to session: IETF-119: ipsecme Tue-0530added_commentnoneactiveidexistsDifferentiated Services Field Codepoints Internet Key Exchange version 2 Notification9809842024-03-18T15:33:06-07002024-03-18T15:33:06-0700Tero KivinenAdded to session: IETF-119: ipsecme Tue-0530added_commentnoneactiveidexistsESP Echo Protocol9809832024-03-18T15:33:06-07002024-03-18T15:33:06-0700Tero KivinenAdded to session: IETF-119: ipsecme Tue-0530added_commentnoneactiveidexistsIKEv2 Link Maximum Atomic Packet and Packet Too Big Notification Extension9809822024-03-18T15:33:06-07002024-03-18T15:33:06-0700Tero KivinenAdded to session: IETF-119: ipsecme Tue-0530added_commentnoneactiveidexistsAnnouncing Supported Authentication Methods in IKEv29809812024-03-18T15:29:57-07002024-03-18T15:29:57-0700David DongIANA Experts State changed to <b>Reviews assigned</b>changed_stateietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivereviewers-okneed-revlcsub-pubIKEv2 support for per-resource Child SAs9809562024-03-18T15:12:21-07002024-03-18T15:12:21-0700Paul WoutersNew version available: <b>draft-ietf-ipsecme-multi-sa-performance-05.txt</b>new_revisionietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pub This document defines two Notify Message Type Payloads for the
Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) to support the
negotiation of multiple Child SAs with the same Traffic Selectors
used on different resources, such as CPUs, to increase bandwidth of
IPsec traffic between peers.
The SA_RESOURCE_INFO notification is used to convey information that
the negotiated Child SA and subsequent new Child SAs with the same
Traffic Selectors are a logical group of Child SAs where most or all
of the Child SAs are bound to a specific resource, such as a specific
CPU. The TS_MAX_QUEUE notify conveys that the peer is unwilling to
create more additional Child SAs for this particular negotiated
Traffic Selector combination.
Using multiple Child SAs with the same Traffic Selectors has the
benefit that each resource holding the Child SA has its own Sequence
Number Counter, ensuring that CPUs don't have to synchronize their
crypto state or disable their packet replay protection.
05IKEv2 support for per-resource Child SAs9809552024-03-18T15:12:21-07002024-03-18T15:12:21-0700Paul WoutersNew version accepted (logged-in submitter: Paul Wouters)new_submissionietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pubIKEv2 support for per-resource Child SAs9809542024-03-18T15:12:21-07002024-03-18T15:12:21-0700Paul WoutersUploaded new revisionnew_submissionietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pubIKEv2 support for per-resource Child SAs9806232024-03-18T00:57:37-07002024-03-18T00:57:37-0700Paul WoutersNew version available: <b>draft-ietf-ipsecme-multi-sa-performance-04.txt</b>new_revisionietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pub This document defines two Notify Message Type Payloads for the
Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) to support the
negotiation of multiple Child SAs with the same Traffic Selectors
used on different resources, such as CPUs, to increase bandwidth of
IPsec traffic between peers.
The SA_RESOURCE_INFO notification is used to convey information that
the negotiated Child SA and subsequent new Child SAs with the same
Traffic Selectors are a logical group of Child SAs where most or all
of the Child SAs are bound to a specific resource, such as a specific
CPU. The TS_MAX_QUEUE notify conveys that the peer is unwilling to
create more additional Child SAs for this particular negotiated
Traffic Selector combination.
Using multiple Child SAs with the same Traffic Selectors has the
benefit that each resource holding the Child SA has its own Sequence
Number Counter, ensuring that CPUs don't have to synchronize their
crypto state or disable their packet replay protection.
05IKEv2 support for per-resource Child SAs9806222024-03-18T00:57:37-07002024-03-18T00:57:37-0700Paul WoutersNew version accepted (logged-in submitter: Paul Wouters)new_submissionietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pubIKEv2 support for per-resource Child SAs9806212024-03-18T00:57:37-07002024-03-18T00:57:37-0700Paul WoutersUploaded new revisionnew_submissionietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pubAnnouncing Supported Authentication Methods in IKEv29798602024-03-17T00:19:30-07002024-03-17T00:19:30-0700Cindy MorganIANA Review state changed to <b>IANA - Review Needed</b>changed_stateietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivereviewers-okneed-revlcsub-pubLast Call Issued: Announcing Supported Authentication Methods in IKEv29798592024-03-17T00:19:30-07002024-03-17T00:19:30-0700Cindy MorganThe following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-03-31):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org><br>To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org><br>CC: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-auth-announce@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org, ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, kivinen@iki.fi, rdd@cert.org<br>Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org<br>Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org><br>Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-auth-announce-06.txt> (Announcing Supported Authentication Methods in IKEv2) to Proposed Standard<br><br><br>The IESG has received a request from the IP Security Maintenance and<br>Extensions WG (ipsecme) to consider the following document: - 'Announcing<br>Supported Authentication Methods in IKEv2'<br> <draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-auth-announce-06.txt> as Proposed Standard<br><br>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final<br>comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the<br>last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-03-31. Exceptionally, comments may<br>be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning<br>of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.<br><br>Abstract<br><br><br> This specification defines a mechanism that allows the Internet Key<br> Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) implementations to indicate the list of<br> supported authentication methods to their peers while establishing<br> IKEv2 Security Association (SA). This mechanism improves<br> interoperability when IKEv2 partners are configured with multiple<br> different credentials to authenticate each other.<br><br><br><br><br>The file can be obtained via<br>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-auth-announce/<br><br><br><br>No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.<br><br><br><br><br>sent_last_callietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivereviewers-okneed-revlcsub-pubAnnouncing Supported Authentication Methods in IKEv29798582024-03-17T00:19:30-07002024-03-17T00:19:30-0700Cindy MorganIESG state changed to <b>In Last Call</b> from Last Call Requestedchanged_stateietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivereviewers-okneed-revlcsub-pubAnnouncing Supported Authentication Methods in IKEv29798572024-03-17T00:19:23-07002024-03-17T00:19:23-0700Cindy MorganLast call announcement was generatedchanged_last_call_textietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivereviewers-okneed-revlcsub-pubAnnouncing Supported Authentication Methods in IKEv29798142024-03-16T22:51:49-07002024-03-16T22:51:49-0700Roman DanyliwLast call was requestedrequested_last_callietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivereviewers-okneed-revlcsub-pubAnnouncing Supported Authentication Methods in IKEv29798132024-03-16T22:51:48-07002024-03-16T22:51:48-0700Roman DanyliwLast call announcement was generatedchanged_last_call_textietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivereviewers-okneed-revlcsub-pubAnnouncing Supported Authentication Methods in IKEv29798122024-03-16T22:51:48-07002024-03-16T22:51:48-0700Roman DanyliwBallot approval text was generatedchanged_ballot_approval_textietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivereviewers-okneed-revlcsub-pubAnnouncing Supported Authentication Methods in IKEv29798112024-03-16T22:51:48-07002024-03-16T22:51:48-0700Roman DanyliwBallot writeup was generatedchanged_ballot_writeup_textietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivereviewers-okneed-revlcsub-pubAnnouncing Supported Authentication Methods in IKEv29798102024-03-16T22:51:47-07002024-03-16T22:51:47-0700Roman DanyliwIESG state changed to <b>Last Call Requested</b> from AD Evaluation::External Partychanged_stateietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivereviewers-okneed-revlcsub-pubA Larger Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) Payload9795072024-03-16T13:54:04-07002024-03-16T13:54:04-0700Yoav NirNew version available: <b>draft-nir-ipsecme-big-payload-03.txt</b>new_revisionnoneactiveidexists The messages of the Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) protocol
are made up of payloads. The current protocol limits each of these
payloads to 64KB by having a 2-byte length field. While this is
usually enough, several of the payloads may need to be larger.
This document defines an extension to IKEv2 that allows larger
payloads.
03A Larger Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) Payload9795062024-03-16T13:54:04-07002024-03-16T13:54:04-0700Yoav NirNew version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yoav Nir)new_submissionnoneactiveidexistsA Larger Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) Payload9795052024-03-16T13:54:04-07002024-03-16T13:54:04-0700Yoav NirUploaded new revisionnew_submissionnoneactiveidexistsIKEv2 support for per-resource Child SAs9790462024-03-14T10:51:53-07002024-03-14T10:51:53-0700Tero KivinenTag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set.changed_documentietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pubIKEv2 support for per-resource Child SAs9790452024-03-14T10:50:35-07002024-03-14T10:50:35-0700Tero Kivinen# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents<br><br>*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*<br><br>Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is<br>answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call<br>and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your<br>diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is<br>further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors<br>and editors to complete these checks.<br><br>Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure<br>to answer all of them.<br><br>## Document History<br><br>1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a<br> few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?<br><br> It reached broad agreement as a valid and useful solution, although some<br> raised concerns that accepting this document might mean similar related<br> drafts might not see adoption. This mostly related to the "sequence number<br> subspaces" draft, which is being worked on as part of a new ESPv4.<br><br>2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where<br> the consensus was particularly rough?<br><br> There was a long discussion about whether or not to negotiate the number of<br> multiple SAs, but it became obvious that no agreement made sense, and thus to<br> leave this open with only a local policy maximum safety.<br><br>3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If<br> so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the<br> responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this<br> questionnaire is publicly available.)<br><br> No.<br><br>4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of<br> the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated<br> plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,<br> either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere<br> (where)?<br><br> These are specified in the draft under Implementation Status.<br><br>## Additional Reviews<br><br>5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other<br> IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit<br> from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which<br> reviews took place.<br><br> Not really - this is pure IPsec / IKEv2 related.<br><br>6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,<br> such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.<br><br> N/A<br><br>7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module<br> been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and<br> formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is<br> the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module<br> comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified<br> in [RFC 8342][5]?<br><br> N/A although the ipsec yang module _could_ be updated with a multi-sa option,<br> which would be a boolean.<br><br>8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the<br> final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,<br> BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.<br><br> N/A<br><br>## Document Shepherd Checks<br><br>9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this<br> document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready<br> to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?<br><br> Yes.<br><br>10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their<br> reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified<br> and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent<br> reviews?<br><br> N/A<br><br>11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best<br> Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],<br> [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type<br> of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?<br><br> Proposed Standard. This is appropriate for a new IKEv2 property that<br> configures an IPsec stack.<br><br>12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual<br> property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To<br> the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If<br> not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links<br> to publicly-available messages when applicable.<br><br> Authors have indicated that they do not know any IPRs related to this.<br><br>13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be<br> listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page<br> is greater than five, please provide a justification.<br><br> Yes.<br><br>14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits<br> tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on<br> authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates<br> some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)<br><br> -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6982<br> (Obsoleted by RFC 7942)<br><br> This will be removed before publication anyway.<br><br>15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG<br> Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].<br><br> No.<br><br>16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did<br> the community have sufficient access to review any such normative<br> references?<br><br> N/A<br><br>17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP<br> 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,<br> list them.<br><br> No.<br><br>18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be<br> submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?<br> If so, what is the plan for their completion?<br><br> No.<br><br>19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If<br> so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs<br> listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the<br> introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document<br> where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.<br><br> No.<br><br>20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,<br> especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.<br> Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are<br> associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm<br> that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm<br> that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,<br> allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).<br><br> One new Notify payload each for the IKEv2 Notify Message Types Error and<br> Status types registry are requested. No new registries are created.<br><br>21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for<br> future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?<br> Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.<br><br> N/A<br><br>[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/<br>[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html<br>[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html<br>[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools<br>[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html<br>[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics<br>[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79<br>[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/<br>[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html<br>[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97<br>[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html<br>[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5<br>[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1<br>[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2<br>[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview<br>[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/<br>[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/<br><br>changed_protocol_writeupietfipsecmeTero KivinenRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pub