Re: [IPsec] Charter update

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 28 July 2014 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C9211A044F for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.892
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.892 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5p2kuNdc6cGa for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FCFC1A01AA for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05EBE20029 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:22:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 09F6A63B0E; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:20:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5DB863B09 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:20:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IPsecME WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <DE4878C5-6CD1-4BCA-9994-D3FB901D6787@vpnc.org>
References: <53CAA14C.80301@gmail.com> <DE4878C5-6CD1-4BCA-9994-D3FB901D6787@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:20:12 -0400
Message-ID: <30780.1406568012@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/CXgY4g31EuBLPyBZdZPTW9Wk3PI
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Charter update
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 17:20:34 -0000

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
    >> Recently discovered incorrect behavior of ISPs poses a challenge to
    >> IKE, whose UDP messages (especially #3 and #4) sometimes get
    >> fragmented at the IP level and then dropped by these ISPs. There is
    >> interest in solving this issue by allowing transport of IKE over TCP;
    >> this is currently implemented by some vendors. The group will
    >> standardize such a solution.

I think that we gave up over TCP, and have back to fragmentation inside IKE,
right?

    >> The WG will revise the IKEv2 specification with a small number of
    >> mandatory tests required for the secure operation of IKEv2 when using
    >> elliptic curve cryptography. This work will be based on
    >> draft-sheffer-ipsecme-dh-checks.

I think we already completed this?

    >> Goals and Milestones:
    >>
    >> Done - IETF Last Call on large scale VPN use cases and requirements
    >> Done - IETF last call on IKE fragmentation solution Done - IETF last
    >> call on new mandatory-to-implement algorithms

Seems like we should have more milestones listed.

I'd like to make the puzzle solving work charter.
I imagine that this is a real problem, but I wouldn't mind some data on how
often gateways are being DDoSed.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-