https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf110/?group=ipsecme&short=&item=1
https://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/ipsecme/2021-03-08.html
Chairs (5 min)
Lou Berger: minor comment (in jabber), slide should read draft-ietf, not draft-hopps
Tero: Correct, it's a bad cut-and-paste
no change since IETF109, ready for last call?!
- no concerns expressed at WG meeting.
-> start WGLC
Valery Smyslov (10 min)
Paul agrees to review this document.
Christian Hopps (10 min)
Comments from Valery about making this more generic.
Much discussion about how/if to make this document more generic.
Conclusion was that some edits will be proposed by Valery in the next 2 weeks, and then publish to IESG in either case.
Donald Fedyk (10 min)
Yoav says that SDNIPSEC document from I2NSF is now at the IESG, and is no longer a moving target.
Tero said no rush on YANG document, and will do an adoption call on SNMP draft. Also unfortunate that there isn't a tool to automatically derive MIB from YANG.
-> WG Adoption for MIB document
Valery Smyslov (5 min)
Discussion about whether or not the document goes to into ADD teritory, or whetner or not IPSECME owns IKEv2 protocol bits.
Section 3, should either be cut, or expanded to point at ADD documents.
Valery Smyslov (15 min)
There was some interest in >64k payloads, and that CBOR might be a way there, but many felt that this was really a path towards IKEv3.
There was skepticism that there are real IoT use cases/users of IKEv2.
Paul Wouters (5 min)
Paul asks for ADOPTION or a clear signal of death.
Tero says that the IKEv1 registries are already effectively closed.
Discussion about why group1 and group22 aren't deprecated in this document, and the answer was that we have RFC8247,etc. to do this.
ACTION: an ADOPTION call will be started after this meeting.
Linda Dunbar (10 min)
no action, no time
Leonie Bruckert (5 min)
Being discussed in LAMPS.
Paul Wouters (5 min)
discuss on list for adoption.
Paul Wouters (5 min)
changes described.