Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9478 <draft-ietf-ipsecme-labeled-ipsec-12> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as
follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322
("RFC Style Guide").

Original:
   Labeled IPsec Traffic Selector support for IKEv2

Current:
   Labeled IPsec Traffic Selector Support for the    
   Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) -->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document
should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for 
content that is semantically less important or tangential to the 
content that surrounds it" (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). -->


3) <!-- [rfced] May we rephrase the following sentence for readability?

Original: 
   That is, the IKE implementation might not have any knowledge of the
   meaning of this selector, other than as a type and opaque value to
   pass to the SPD.

Perhaps: 
   That is, the IKE implementation might not have any knowledge regarding
   the meaning of this selector other than recognizing it as a type and
   opaque value to pass to the SPD. -->


4) <!-- [rfced] We are unable to parse the following sentence, particularly
"start and end address/port match". Please let us know how we can update
this text for clarity.

Original: 
   If multiple Security Labels are allowed for a given IP protocol,
   start and end address/port match, the initiator includes all of
   the acceptable TS_SECLABEL's and the responder MUST select one 
   of them.

Perhaps: 
   If multiple Security Labels are allowed for a given IP protocol, such
   as a start and end address/port match, the initiator includes all the
   TS_SECLABELs that are acceptable, and the responder MUST select one of 
   them. -->


5) <!-- [rfced] We have clarified and rephrased the following sentence to limit
the repetition of the word "first". Please let us know any objections.

Original: 
   If the initiator does not support this, and wants to prevent the
   responder from picking different labels for the TSi / TSr payloads, 
   it should attempt a Child SA negotiation with only the first Security 
   Label first, and upon failure retry a new Child SA negotiation with 
   only the second Security Label.

Current: 
   If the initiator does not support this and wants to prevent the
   responder from picking different labels for the TSi/TSr payloads,
   it should attempt a Child SA negotiation and start with the first 
   Security Label only. Upon failure, the initiator should retry a 
   new Child SA negotiation with only the second Security Label. -->


6) <!--[rfced] Please confirm that you would like to point to this reference
even though there is a note stating that it was withdrawn as of
October 2015 (see the warning at
<https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/fips/188/finals>).

Current:
   [FIPS188]  National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
              "Standard Security Label for Information Transfer", FIPS
              PUB 188, September 1994,
              <https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/fips/188/
              archive/1994-09-06>.-->	


7) <!-- [rfced] Terminology

a) The following terms appear to be used inconsistently, so we updated the
text to reflect the latter forms. Please let us know of any objections.

  traffic selector -> Traffic Selector
  Traffic Selector type -> Traffic Selector Type
  TS Payload -> TS payload
  TSi/TSr Payloads -> Tsi/TSr payloads
  
b) We notice instances of "Security Label" vs. "security label". We
assume that the lowercase form is used when referring to security
labels in general and the capitalized form is used when referring to 
the opaque byte stream of at least one octet. Please review this
term in the running text and let us know if any instances need
updating for consistency.-->


8) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations/Acronyms

a) We note that "MLS" is expanded as "Multi-Level Secure (MLS)" in RFC 5570 and 
"Multilevel Systems (MLS)" in this document. Would you like to update the 
expansion to match RFC 5570 (option i)? If you do not want to update it to match, 
should the abbreviation be plural (option ii)?

Perhaps:
i)  Historically, security labels used by Multi-level Secure (MLS) systems
    are comprised of a sensitivity level (or classification) field and a
    compartment (or category) field, as defined in [FIPS188] and
    [RFC5570]. 
or 

ii) Historically, security labels used by Multilevel Systems (MLSes) are
    comprised of a sensitivity level (or classification) field and a
    compartment (or category) field, as defined in [FIPS188] and
    [RFC5570]. 

b) We note that Section 1.2 defines two uses for the term "Traffic Selector"
(one with no abbreviation and one with the abbreviation "TS"). To make
abbreviations consistent, we suggest using "TS" after the first introduction
of the term where appropriate. Are there instances throughout the document
where we should not abbreviate this term (e.g., only abbreviating the term
where it modifies a noun, such as Traffic Selector Type)? -->


9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Note that our script did not flag 
any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. -->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/mc/kc


On Sep 12, 2023, at 1:49 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/09/12

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

  Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
  that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
  follows:

  <!-- [rfced] ... -->

  These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

  Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
  coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
  agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

  Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
  change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
  - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
  - contact information
  - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

  Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
  RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
  (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

  Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
  content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
  and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
  <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

  Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
  formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
  reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
  limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

  *  your coauthors

  *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

  *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
     IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
     responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).

  *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
     to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
     list:

    *  More info:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc

    *  The archive itself:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

    *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
       of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
       If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
       have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
       [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
       its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
diff files of the XML.  

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9478

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9478 (draft-ietf-ipsecme-labeled-ipsec-12)

Title            : Labeled IPsec Traffic Selector support for IKEv2
Author(s)        : P. Wouters, S. Prasad
WG Chair(s)      : Yoav Nir, Tero Kivinen

Area Director(s) : Roman Danyliw, Paul Wouters