[bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec term-11 and meth-04

Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> Sun, 05 April 2009 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF2AB3A6B46 for <bmwg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.584
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.212, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kU+j-gQCnF2t for <bmwg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail121.messagelabs.com (mail121.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B41E23A6B07 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1238966816!30188794!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141]
Received: (qmail 5774 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2009 21:26:57 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-14.tower-121.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 5 Apr 2009 21:26:57 -0000
Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n35LQuwo032274 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:26:56 -0700
Received: from klph001.kcdc.att.com (klph001.kcdc.att.com [135.188.3.11]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n35LQnH0032265 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:26:50 -0700
Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id n35LQngY032018 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 16:26:49 -0500
Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id n35LQguq031986 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 16:26:42 -0500
Message-Id: <200904052126.n35LQguq031986@klph001.kcdc.att.com>
Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-118-4.vpn.swst.att.com[135.70.118.4](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20090405212641gw1000u61ve>; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:26:42 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:26:36 -0400
To: bmwg@ietf.org
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
In-Reply-To: <52BEEFEC-4331-4227-894C-E3EDEE55FDBA@merike.com>
References: <52BEEFEC-4331-4227-894C-E3EDEE55FDBA@merike.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec term-11 and meth-04
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:26:04 -0000

BMWG,

This message begins a Last call on the IPsec terms and methods.

There little I can add to Merike's summary below, except a
few URLs and a date:

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bmwg/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-term/
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bmwg/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-meth/

The Last Call with end on April 20, 2009.

Please weigh-in on whether or not these Internet-Drafts
should be given to the Area Directors and IESG for consideration and
publication as an Informational RFCs.  Send your comments
to this list or acmorton@att.com.

Al
bmwg chair


At 02:36 PM 4/3/2009, Merike Kaeo wrote:
>The new version of the ipsec terminology 
>(draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-term-11.txt) and ipsec methodology 
>(draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-meth-04.txt) documents were posted today.
>
>The following modifications were done from the previous versions and
>address all the comments made in the last year.
>
>additions/changes for term-11 draft:
>- change definition of IPsec Server to IPsec Gateway and in the issue
>section state
>    "IPsec Gateways are also sometimes referred to as 'IPsec Servers'
>or 'VPN
>    Concentrators'
>- added NAT traversal to security context under IKE context as a MUST
>- changed 'IPsec Tunnel Capacity' to explicitly state that each IPsec SA
>   is associated with exactly 1 IKE SA
>- IPsec througput definition - delete second paragraph in discussion
>- Changed Phase 1 DoS resiliency rate definition to generalize on a
>rate of
>   measurement that is to be measured as a graph of valid IKE Phase 1
>tunnel
>   attempts per second (TAPS) and the percentage of failure
>
>
>additions/changes for meth-04 draft:
>- added text under 'Frame Type' section to explicitly recommend
>testing Nat-Traversal scenario which requires UDP encapsulation.
>- changed text 'Testing of AH Transforms 1 and 2 MUST be supported'
>to 'If AH is supported by the DUT/SUT testing of AH Transforms 1 and
>2 MUST be supported'
>- added clarification text to section 9.1 on throughput baseline and
>reference to IPsec SA traffic selectors
>- modified section 9.1 language on reporting format to get rid of
>terms 'advertising copy' and 'product datasheet' and any references
>to publications requirements
>- modified text in all frame loss test procedures to mention 'nominal
>device throughput' rather than 'frame rate on input media
>- add text for 11.2 topology section to address scenario with an
>asymmetric topology
>- added single tunnel, maximum throughput case in section 14 as a MUST
>- modified text in 15.1 to change test procedure so that it would
>quantify the measure
>- modified text in 15.2 to make scalability point explicit and
>clarify reporting format text
>- added text in sections 12.1, 12.2 and 15.1 to address the case
>where you can have less than n IKE Phase 1 policies configured to
>still have offered traffic create n IKE SAs
>
>Thanks to Yaron Sheffer for his help on the xml conversions which I
>now finally have a hang of.
>
>- merike