[Idr] 2 Week WG adoption call draft-hujun-idr-bgp-ipsec-02.txt and draft-hujun-idr-bgp-ipsec-transport-mode-00 (3/30 to 4/13/2020

Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Mon, 30 March 2020 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594213A14A5 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 05:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.729
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.729 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=1.449, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5i1j_4rWnz6N for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 05:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F04613A14A3 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 05:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=166.170.25.188;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'IDR List'" <idr@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:06:49 -0400
Message-ID: <015601d6068b$b1bd1cb0$15375610$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0157_01D6066A.2AAB7CB0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdYGi5aB9xcU8mI1Sp2/j515IzKD3w==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 200329-0, 03/29/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TyA3S1u7fv78sxZa4G01uB3-BDs>
Subject: [Idr] 2 Week WG adoption call draft-hujun-idr-bgp-ipsec-02.txt and draft-hujun-idr-bgp-ipsec-transport-mode-00 (3/30 to 4/13/2020
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 12:06:55 -0000

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for  two drafts BGP provisioned IPSEC
infrastructure 

 

1) draft-hujun-idr-bgp-ipsec-02.txt:

BGP Provisioned IPSEC Tunnel Configuration 

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hujun-idr-bgp-ipsec/

 

2) draft-hujun-idr-bgp-ipsec-transport-mode-00.txt:

BGP Provisioned IPsec Transport Mode Protected Tunnel Configuration 

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hujun-idr-bgp-ipsec-transport-mode/

 

These drafts were presented at IETF 104 and IETF 105. 

At IETF 105, there was a detailed discussion on the security issues. 

After IETF 105, the author modified his draft to take care of the 

Issues mentioned.  

 

Discussion during the WG Adoption should examine: 

1) Has this draft addressed the necessary security issues to 

    be adopted as IDR WG draft?

 

2) Is this useful generic IPSEC functionality for networks? 

 

   The EVPN related to IPSEC continues in BESS. 

   This draft is considered here as a general feature. 

 

3) Are there any deployments of this draft? 

 

 

Stay safe and healthy. Sue