Re: [IPsec] Clarifications and Implementation Guidelines for using TCP Encapsulation in IKEv2 draft

[Valery Smyslov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tommy,

> Hi Valery,
> 
> Thanks for bringing this up again. Would you be interested in making this
an
> RFC8229bis instead? I think it would be most useful for an implementer to
fold
> some of these clarifications into the main text itself. How do you feel
about
> that?

I'd be happy to do it. I also think that a -bis document is more useful.
The reason that this draft is not a rfc8229bis is that one and half
year ago it was a general feeling that more experience need to be
collected before -bis document should be issued. Now it is almost
3 years since rfc8229 is published, I agree that it's probably time to start
preparing -bis.

One concern is the current WG charter - 
it seems to me that it only allows
clarification document and not a -bis.
It is a question to our chairs and AD - are
we allowed to proceed with rfc8229bis document
with the current charter text or should we update it
and ask for re-chartering?

Regards,
Valery.


> Best,
> Tommy
> 
> > On Apr 28, 2020, at 2:54 AM, Valery Smyslov <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > a one and half year ago at IETF 103 in Bangkok I presented
> > draft-smyslov-ipsecme-tcp-guidelines
> > "Clarifications and Implementation Guidelines for using TCP
> > Encapsulation in IKEv2"
> >
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-smyslov-ipsecme-tcp-guidelines/).
> >> From my recollection of the meeting and from minutes it was a general
> > feeling in the room that
> > this document was useful for implementers, since it clarified some
> > subtle issues that were not covered in RFC 8229. However, at that time
> > no adoption call was issued since this work would require to update
> > the IPSECME charter.
> > It took over a year to adopt the updated charter and now the WG is
> > chartered for this work with this draft as a possible starting point.
> > The text in the charter:
> >
> > 	RFC8229, published in 2017, specifies how to encapsulate
> > 	IKEv2 and ESP traffic in TCP. Implementation experience has
> > 	revealed that not all situations are covered in RFC8229, and that
may
> > 	lead to interoperability problems or to suboptimal performance. The
> > WG
> > 	will provide a document to give implementors more guidance about how
> > to use
> > 	reliable stream transport in IKEv2 and clarify some issues that have
> > been
> > 	discovered.
> >
> > However, since it was so long since the WG last discussed the draft,
> > the chairs asked me to send a message to the list to determine whether
> > there is still an interest in the WG to proceed with this work with
> > this draft as a starting point.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Valery.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IPsec mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec