Re: [IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-04

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sat, 01 December 2018 16:10 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 3501D1277D2 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 08:10:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] 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 iR6lwk8QlJE7 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 08:10:44 -0800 (PST)
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 DAF391271FF for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 08:10:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 436bp91XpvzMRx; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 17:10:41 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1543680641; bh=JdFmTlgLJN1nWRGCAj29kYd2Dyk2l0aLyPq0BzuQMIA=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=FPfeUjrjWe5nfjD8vVOJs9ZOs+qrZyPzJJzAls7ZvDdRBV9sudYI7jgDSvqNOpYC3 YtAauWM/GSOArg1mvD/PSWe2tlfxJnJ/F+Pwjhe3l3CHTG7qCpJGG30Hj/a8rB1e7+ oykdEtJVXptRjXBz1LYSJLn77UxR0Bq6W1Asx4uU=
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 XB4MXPITjSFO; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 17:10:39 +0100 (CET)
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; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 17:10:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6CA96319421; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 11:10:38 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 6CA96319421
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4D640D37F8; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 11:10:38 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 11:10:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: "Waltermire, David A. (Fed)" <david.waltermire@nist.gov>
cc: IPsecME WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR09MB326465B254A7FB7C57142770F0D30@SN6PR09MB3264.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1812011108260.5400@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <SN6PR09MB326465B254A7FB7C57142770F0D30@SN6PR09MB3264.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (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/FiLYuQG_5tTEPO86FpcTPiB-Tak>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-04
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 01 Dec 2018 16:10:45 -0000

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Waltermire, David A. (Fed) wrote:

> This message starts a working group last call (WGLC) on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-04, which will conclude on December 14, 2018 at UTC 23:59. Please review and provide feedback on the -04 version (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2/). Please indicate if you believe this draft is ready for publication or if you have comments that must be addressed before the draft progresses to the IESG.

I believe the document is ready. We (libreswan) have implemented it and
performed successful interop with 3 other vendors (Cisco, Apple, Elvis+)

It is important because this eliminates one of the very few reasons left
why people would need to run IKEv1 instead of IKEv2.

Paul