IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 14 March 2013 11:33 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 7656621F8FD2 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 04:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.58
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, 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 ayianiIYaX9O for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 04:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0395A21F8FCF for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 04:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-4717.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-4717.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.71.23]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2EBXWSP087187 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 04:33:33 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20799.34490.611737.922474@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:33:32 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AF3F21AE-8695-47FC-BC41-4097635D0C95@vpnc.org>
References: <20799.34490.611737.922474@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
To: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
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 11:33:34 -0000

<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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email