Re: [IPsec] IPsec maintenance/extensions WG, summary so far

["Hui Deng" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Pasi's charter discussion,

Here is my list:
[ECR] o  Using GRE "key" header field as IPsec traffic selector (possible
  starting point: draft-ma-softwire-ipsec-gre-demultiplexing-ps)

[ECR] o  Setting up GRE tunnels with IKE (possible starting point:
  draft-wu-l3vpn-ipsec-gre-00)

[ECR] o  IKEv2 session resumption / optimizing IKEv2 handshake when
  connecting again to same peer/cluster of peers (possible
  starting point: draft-sheffer-ipsec-failover)

Thanks,

-Hui

2008/5/7  <[e-mail]>:
> So far, we've had ~20 people who've expressed some form of support
> for creating a WG. This is good -- many current WGs have less than 20
> people who regularly post to the WG mailing list.
>
> However, by my count, we've also had ~20 proposals for work items.
> That obviously does not add up.
>
> I agree with Paul's comment about the WG scope: the WG should work
> on things where having a WG is really needed, and we actually have a
> *group* of people interested on participating.
>
> Having a WG should not encourage people to develop extensions that
> would not have happened in the absence of a WG (this usually indicates
> they're not widely needed). For some work items that have been
> proposed, an individual draft is IMHO a more appropriate process
> mechanism, and forming a WG would not automatically prevent
> publication of non-WG documents the WG decided not to take.
>
> To get some idea on what work items we have most interest in, I've
> collected those proposed so far (with some things vendors are known to
> do in proprietary ways thrown in).
>
> Please select the items you think the WG should work on (less than
> ten, please), order them most important first, and for each item,
> indicate what you're willing to do:
>
>  [E]dit: you're willing to edit the draft corresponding to the work
>  item (note: even if we use an individual draft as a starting point,
>  this does not automatically determine the editor of the WG item)
>
>  [C]ontribute: you're willing to propose non-trivial amounts of
>  text for the document during its development
>
>  [R]eview: you're willing to review new revisions of the draft
>  regularly (not just during WGLC)
>
> For example,
>
>  [CR] AEAD algorithms in IKEv2
>  [R] IPsec document roadmap update
>
> would mean that AEAD algorithms is your first priority, and you
> volunteer to contribute and review; and IPsec document roadmap is
> your second priority, and you volunteer to review.
>
> You can also propose a work item that isn't on my list.
> However, for the time being, I think PF_KEY work does not fit
> within the scope of the possible WG charter.
>
> List follows:
>
> o  Update to IKEv2 base specification (possible starting point:
>   draft-hoffman-ikev2bis)
>
> o  IPsec document roadmap update (possible starting point: RFC 2411)
>
> o  Using AEAD algorithms in IKEv2 (possible starting point:
>   draft-black-ipsec-ikev2-aead-modes)
>
> o  Redirecting a VPN client from one gateway to another
>   (in a cluster of gateways)
>
> o  IPsec "secure beacon", or detecting whether you need VPN or
>   not (possible starting point: draft-sheffer-ipsec-secure-beacon)
>
> o  Detecting crashed peers faster (possible starting point:
>   draft-nir-ike-qcd)
>
> o  IKEv2 session resumption / optimizing IKEv2 handshake when
>   connecting again to same peer/cluster of peers (possible
>   starting point: draft-sheffer-ipsec-failover)
>
> o  Authentication-only IPsec that simplifies packet inspection
>   (possible starting points: draft-hoffman-esp-null-protocol,
>   draft-grewal-ipsec-traffic-visibility)
>
> o  Better IPv6 configuration payloads (possible starting point:
>   draft-eronen-ipsec-ikev2-ipv6-config)
>
> o  Other work for making sure IKEv1 and IKEv2 work as well as
>   possible with IPv6, both from standards and operations standpoint
>   (please specify more details if you select this one)
>
> o  Running IPsec over TCP (so your VPN works even if the coffee
>   shop Wi-Fi has stupid packet filtering)
>
> o  GSS-API (or Kerberos) authentication for IKEv2
>
> o  Non-EAP-based one-time password authentication (possible
>   starting point: draft-sunabhi-otp-ikev2)
>
> o  Using GRE "key" header field as IPsec traffic selector (possible
>   starting point: draft-ma-softwire-ipsec-gre-demultiplexing-ps)
>
> o  Authentication with Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)
>   (possible starting point: draft-laganier-ike-ipv6-cga)
>
> o  Guidelines for Mandating the Use of IPsec, for RFC430x IPsec
>   (possible starting point: draft-bellovin-useipsec)
>
> o  Labeled IPsec for RFC 430x IPsec
>
> o  IKEv1/IKEv2 co-existence and transition (please specify more
>   details if you select this one)
>
> o  Setting up GRE tunnels with IKE (possible starting point:
>   draft-wu-l3vpn-ipsec-gre-00)
>
> o  Connecting IKEv2 peers behind NATs via a "mediation server"
>   (possible starting point: draft-brunner-ikev2-mediation)
>
> o  Anything that may be needed from IKE/IPsec with respect to
>   routing protocol security (please specify more details if
>   you select this one)
>
> o  Documenting differences in IPsec usage in IETF vs. 3GPP vs.
>   3GPP2 vs. WiMAX vs. vendors etc. (please specify more details
>   if you select this one)
>
> o  IKEv2 CAPTCHA
>   (possible starting point: draft-mutaf-spikev2-01.txt)
>
> Please reply (on the mailing list) within a week or so -- I will
> then summarize what we have.
>
> Best regards,
> Pasi
>
> ---
>
> P.S. It's good to note that we currently have several other WGs
> working on IPsec:
>
> o  BMWG: benchmarking IPsec devices
>
> o  BTNS: unauthenticated or leap-of-faith IPsec, channel bindings,
>   IPsec APIs for applications (not key management daemons like
>   PF_KEY)
>
> o  MEXT: interaction between IPsec and Mobile IP, Mobile IP
>   specific extensions to IPsec
>
> o  MSEC: multicast IPsec
>
> o  ROHC: header compression in IPsec tunnel mode SAs
>
> o  SOFTWIRE: IPsec tunnels as a softwire, setting those up
>   based on BGP etc.
>
> These WGs will continue as-is, and e.g. any changes to their charters
> are not in the scope of this discussion. Future work items could be
> considered case-by-case, but the intent is *not* to collect all
> IPsec-related work to one WG.
>
> ---
>
> P.P.S. Acknowledgement: if you followed how Julien Laganier and
> Marcelo Bagnulo handled the MEXT WG rechartering recently, you'll
> notice I have stolen some ideas from them :-)
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec