Re: [IPsec] Working Group LC: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-03

Hi Yoav,

2010/5/27 Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>:
> 1. I didn't want to make ha-03 dependent on bis, but since bis is now approved, we may as well do it.

OK.

>
> 2. OK
>
> 3. It should be out of scope, because this is internal to the cluster. We are not going to require a peer to accept having two SAs with the same SPIs with the same peer, so it's up to the members to prevent this using their own out-of-scope method. It is possible to mention this and then say that it's out of scope, if people think this is necessary.

OK.

Thx.

Best regards.

JMC.

>
> Yoav
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Michel Combes
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 4:22 PM
> To: Yaron Sheffer
> Cc: IPsecme WG
> Subject: Re: [IPsec] Working Group LC: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-03
>
> Hi,
>
> please, find my review of this document:
>
> 1.  Introduction
>
>   IKEv2, as described in [RFC4306] and [RFC4718], and IPsec, as
>   described in [RFC4301] and others, allows deployment of VPNs between
>   different sites as well as from VPN clients to protected networks.
>
> <JMC>
> Instead of mentioning [RFC4306) and [RFC4718], maybe replace with
> [draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2bis]?
> <JMC>
>
> [snip]
>
> 2.  Terminology
>
> [snip]
>
>   "Failover" is the event where a one member takes over some load from
>   some other member.  In a hot standby cluster, this hapens when a
>   standby memeber becomes active due to a failure of the former active
>
> <JMC>
> s/memeber/member
> <JMC>
>
> [snip]
>
> 3.  The Problem Statement
>
> <JMC>
> I didn't see anything about potential collisions (e.g. SPI for a
> specific SA on a member of the cluster is already used on another
> member) during a failover: is such an issue out of scope?
> <JMC>
>
> Thanks in advance for your reply.
>
> Best regards.
>
> JMC.
>
>
> 2010/5/25 Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>:
>> With 5 more days to go, this is a quick reminder to review the problem
>> statement draft so we can move it along, and get to the juicy protocol
>> stuff.
>>
>> This time around, we will take silence as agreement.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>        Yaron
>>
>> On 05/16/2010 03:53 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
>>>
>>> This is to begin a 2 week working group last call for
>>> draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-03
>>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-03). The target
>>> status for this document is Informational.
>>>
>>> Please send your comments to the ipsec list by May 30, 2010, as
>>> follow-ups to this message.
>>>
>>> Brief comments of the form: "I have read this draft and it looks fine"
>>> are also welcome.
>>>
>>> Quick heads up: this is a requirements definition draft. Once we have
>>> determined consensus around it, we would like to move forward with
>>> solutions. Individual solution drafts are welcome as usual, but we would
>>> like to establish at some point a design team to hash out a common
>>> solution document. Let us know by private mail if you're interested.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yaron
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPsec mailing list
>> IPsec@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>
> Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
>