IETF Logo Mail Archive

[IPsec] Should draft-ietf-ipsecme-tcp-encaps-10 update 7296 ?

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 01 June 2017 23:17 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 24BD5129449 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 16:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 KxEV9pBFeb3A for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 16:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BBE712420B for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 16:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3wf3Ch4WTMz36S; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 01:17:36 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1496359056; bh=Vg+wZOSt1H1XOEgu4LOnVy+G6DDvJYF+kHumVR/XRdY=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=huWKff8kRyMtCMiVI6pY7S0KZH4JjeFlD45ueWC/y+9oqmOhkoLR+zS6vs+NBb4A9 ThC2wSfbDoh2Hg3aExZB9usXxqy025SruDu3qX/hAyVQNGCG94IuiOJu8IH8zBI8E2 vsa1iKlbf3VSFwDzSdyN1/n+zjJ/IoiCQFYAbVL8=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NcuXjO6n1Sxw; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 01:17:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 01:17:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5CACF414CCC; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 19:17:31 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 5CACF414CCC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 403BC41799A5; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 19:17:31 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 19:17:31 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
cc: IPsecME WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <34C32236-D200-421F-AF6E-F953DA79A869@apple.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1706011914200.15292@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <149312449263.5884.11168631631187069210.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <22785.64570.259658.376130@fireball.acr.fi> <277aa94d-5aa1-7a28-94c7-81da0966c172@kuehlewind.net> <41594727-9667-42BD-ABB1-4583A3B00EA2@apple.com> <CAKKJt-fb1vx=SzpJ_9gvtJ+SEH08nyBRGqb7F36PGw0EyJ6zmA@mail.gmail.com> <853700CB-D5DD-4BC7-A1F5-5AB61330E70D@apple.com> <22792.20148.255067.132946@fireball.acr.fi> <82B5E72F-C518-420B-B941-E4CE4DD1BF87@kuehlewind.net> <22792.31378.769444.232365@fireball.acr.fi> <78A72CF3-E011-4E8D-9F66-63C7918A8236@kuehlewind.net> <22793.40707.624092.66793@fireball.acr.fi> <c0fad3b5-54b1-a347-0ea1-bec24dab0e36@kuehlewind.net> <CAKKJt-ceDuYKWGBFb6RKc8K_AcB55doOXMf11Ke807f6kc+UFA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPz0BN5643j9QHQx-5LfxXLbTGj2XmUrOfkU7PsHpcZcg@mail.gmail.com> <F1859DB7-AB24-49DA-A5B1-AAE74201368A@kuehlewind.net> <A078B858-687C-42E2-A1A2-8123949DC317@apple.com> <34C32236-D200-421F-AF6E-F953DA79A869@apple.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20.999 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/CewCQ92h1sESfjvXFzb_2WKK3A8>
Subject: [IPsec] Should draft-ietf-ipsecme-tcp-encaps-10 update 7296 ?
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 01 Jun 2017 23:17:43 -0000

On Wed, 31 May 2017, Tommy Pauly wrote:

> I've posted a new version of the draft that incorporates the changes discussed in this thread. Please review!
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-tcp-encaps-10

I just noticed this in RFC 7296:

 	However, if a NAT is detected, both devices MUST use UDP encapsulation for ESP.

I'm not sure if this one sentence really qualifies as this draft needing
a formal "Updates 7296", but it currently does not seem to do that.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email