Protocol Action: 'IKEv2 Fragmentation' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation-10.txt)

[The IESG <[e-mail]>]

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IKEv2 Fragmentation'
  (draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation-10.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the IP Security Maintenance and
Extensions Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Kathleen Moriarty and Stephen Farrell.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation/




Technical Summary

    This document describes a method to avoid IP fragmentation in large 
    IKEv2 messages. It shows how to perform fragmentation in IKEv2 
    itself, replacing them by series of smaller messages.
    This allows IKEv2 messages to traverse network devices that don't 
    allow IP fragments to pass through.

    Given that this is a protocol extension, it is meant to be a 
    Proposed Standard.

Working Group Summary

    Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?

    The WG discussion of the document was fairly good, with about 
    average participation (which for the IPsecME WG means "the chairs 
    had to beg a bit for more participants, but we then got them"). We 
    also got a "TSVDIR-ish review" of the draft, which got good 
    discussion on the list. There was a reasonable amount of give-and-
    take, and the WG Last Call was uncontentious. A significant point 
    was brought up during IETF Last Call, and was added to the Security
    Considerations as a result of the SecDir review.

    A few issues came up during the first IESG review.  Another series 
    of edits occurred along with detailed reviews by a couple of area 
    experts.  The edited draft went back through WG last call and is 
    ready for IESG review again.

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel

   Paul Hoffman (IPsecME WG co-chair) is the document shepherd and Kathleen Moriarty is the
   responsible AD.