[IPsec] Informal poll on IKEv2 { over TCP | fragmentation }

Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> Thu, 14 March 2013 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <kivinen@iki.fi>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D49941F0D0F for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zE00x4H6h7oI for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.acr.fi [83.145.195.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E77B1F0D09 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2EM0KSn019194 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:00:20 +0200 (EET)
Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (8.14.5/8.12.11) id r2EM0JIm001355; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:00:19 +0200 (EET)
X-Authentication-Warning: fireball.kivinen.iki.fi: kivinen set sender to kivinen@iki.fi using -f
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <20802.18547.325537.302615@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:00:19 +0200
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <AF3F21AE-8695-47FC-BC41-4097635D0C95@vpnc.org>
References: <20799.34490.611737.922474@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi> <AF3F21AE-8695-47FC-BC41-4097635D0C95@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.4.1
X-Edit-Time: 2 min
X-Total-Time: 1 min
Cc: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: [IPsec] Informal poll on IKEv2 { over TCP | fragmentation }
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 22:01:41 -0000

Paul Hoffman writes:
> <chair-hat on>
> 
> It is seeming that consensus is trending towards "let's document the
> fragmentation method some vendors are already doing instead of
> finishing IKEv2-over-TCP", but I would like to check that. Please
> respond to the informal poll below. 
> 
> --Paul Hoffman
> 
> - I would prefer the WG to continue working on IKEv2 over TCP
> - I would prefer the WG to stop working on IKEv2 over TCP and
>   instead work on standardizing IKEv2 fragmentation 
> - I would prefer the WG to continue working on IKEv2 over TCP and
>   also work on standardizing IKEv2 fragmentation 

Either 1 or 2, but not for 3. I.e. either one is fine for me, but I do
not want to have two ways of doing it in IKEv2. 
-- 
kivinen@iki.fi