I-D list for IP Security Maintenance and Extensions RSS Feed

Merkle Tree Certificates in the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)

2026-10-08T09:50:45.249098+00:00

New version available: draft-reddy-ipsecme-ikev2-mtc-landmarks-00.txt

Merkle Tree Certificates in the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)

2026-10-08T09:50:45.245573+00:00

New version approved

Merkle Tree Certificates in the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)

2026-10-08T09:48:31.870582+00:00

Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: "Tirumaleswar Reddy.K" , Valery Smyslov

Merkle Tree Certificates in the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)

2026-10-08T09:47:58.417107+00:00

Uploaded new revision

Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) Session Resumption

2026-10-07T18:27:18.997824+00:00

Update from RFC Editor: added errata tag

Separate Transports for IKE and ESP

2026-10-01T08:50:39.428268+00:00

New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-reliable-transport-08.txt

Separate Transports for IKE and ESP

2026-10-01T08:50:39.424471+00:00

New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Valery Smyslov)

Separate Transports for IKE and ESP

2026-10-01T08:50:39.370932+00:00

Uploaded new revision

Using the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) for PSP Key Management

2026-09-30T13:19:06.555097+00:00

New version available: draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-psp-02.txt

Using the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) for PSP Key Management

2026-09-30T13:19:06.551639+00:00

New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Valery Smyslov)

Using the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) for PSP Key Management

2026-09-30T13:19:06.494565+00:00

Uploaded new revision

Differentiated Services Field Codepoints Internet Key Exchange version 2 Notification

2026-09-29T13:07:51.120828+00:00

IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from Adopted by a WG

Differentiated Services Field Codepoints Internet Key Exchange version 2 Notification

2026-09-29T13:06:53.015161+00:00

Intended Status changed to Experimental from None

Separate Transports for IKE and ESP

2026-09-29T13:00:27.752791+00:00

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There has been broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

Yes, implementations exist.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

No. The document is scoped to IKEv2/ESP transport behavior within IPSECME WGs
own charter; it does not introduce dependencies on other WGs' protocols.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in [RFC 8342][5]?

No YANG module in it.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The document contains no formal-language artifacts (no ASN.1, MIB, YANG, or
CDDL). The message-flow diagrams in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are illustrative
ASCII exchanges.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Document is ready to be handed off to the AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

Security Area review guidance is applicable and will be checked as part of the
normal SECDIR review. No additional Area-specific review is needed at this stage.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. The document defines a new IKEv2 notification (SEPARATE_TRANSPORTS)
and related protocol behavior for decoupling IKEv2 and ESP transports, making Standards
Track appropriate.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

No IPRs known.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes. There are only two listed authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

References are correctly specified.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All normative references are IETF RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.

No. All normative references are RFCs or BCPs at or above Proposed Standard
level.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No. All normative references are published RFCs.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This document updates a normative requirement of RFC 9329: Section 4.1
(Interaction with MOBIKE) states that this specification updates
the Section 7.1 of RFC 9329 requirement that a peer should attempt to switch
back to UDP after an IP address change, when separate transports are in
use, peers MUST NOT attempt that switch. The Datatracker "Updates" field
should be set to RFC 9329.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

This document allocates a single new Notify Message Type from the existing
IKEv2 registry, and one of the authors is an IANA designated expert for
that registry. IANA allocations in the draft are ok.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new registries.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Separate Transports for IKE and ESP

2026-09-29T13:00:27.736369+00:00

IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up

Separate Transports for IKE and ESP

2026-09-29T13:00:27.679599+00:00

IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists

Separate Transports for IKE and ESP

2026-09-29T13:00:27.672381+00:00

Changed action holders to Deb Cooley (IESG state changed)

Separate Transports for IKE and ESP

2026-09-29T13:00:27.603390+00:00

Responsible AD changed to Deb Cooley

Separate Transports for IKE and ESP

2026-09-29T13:00:27.597063+00:00

Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested

Separate Transports for IKE and ESP

2026-09-29T12:53:05.375429+00:00

Notification list changed to kivinen@iki.fi because the document shepherd was set

Separate Transports for IKE and ESP

2026-09-29T12:53:05.375429+00:00

Document shepherd changed to Tero Kivinen

Separate Transports for IKE and ESP

2026-09-29T12:52:41.507439+00:00

Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown

Separate Transports for IKE and ESP

2026-09-29T12:52:41.498036+00:00

Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None

Separate Transports for IKE and ESP

2026-09-29T12:52:26.156389+00:00

Differentiated Services Field Codepoints Internet Key Exchange version 2 Notification

2026-09-29T12:21:05.737675+00:00

IETF WG state changed to Adopted by a WG from Call For Adoption By WG Issued

Differentiated Services Field Codepoints Internet Key Exchange version 2 Notification

2026-09-29T12:21:05.694157+00:00

Notification list changed to none

A Larger Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) Payload

2026-09-29T12:19:56.534763+00:00

IETF WG state changed to Adopted by a WG from Call For Adoption By WG Issued

A Larger Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) Payload

2026-09-29T12:19:56.498041+00:00

Notification list changed to none