[IPsec] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8229 (5320)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 11 April 2022 00:23 UTC

To: valery@smyslov.net, tpauly@apple.com, samy.touati@ericsson.com, ramantha@cisco.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: paul.wouters@aiven.io, iesg@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20220411002347.9CD86E43A5@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 17:23:47 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/INNBXtAjJ__MiIsZUfzba-unxJI>
Subject: [IPsec] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8229 (5320)
Precedence: list

The following errata report has been held for document update
for RFC8229, "TCP Encapsulation of IKE and IPsec Packets".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5320

--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported by: Valery Smyslov <valery@smyslov.net>
Date Reported: 2018-04-09
Held by: Paul Wouters (IESG)

Section: GLOBAL

Original Text
-------------

Corrected Text
--------------
TCP provides reliable transport, so there is no need for applications
to deal with retransmissions. Moreover, sending retransmissions by IKE
in case of TCP on congested networks could further increase congestion
and degrade performance. For this reason IKE initiators SHOULD NOT
retransmit requests if they are sent over TCP. However, both IKE
initiators and responders MUST correctly handle retransmitted messages
received over TCP, but responders SHOULD NOT resend response messages
in this case. If IKE initiators still choose to retransmit requests
over TCP, then the retransmission policy SHOULD be less aggressive than
it would have been in case of UDP.

Notes
-----
While Section 12.2 discusses some implications that TCP transport could have on ESP protocol, the IKE retransmission behavior, described in Section 2.1 of RFC7296, is not redefined by this RFC. This is an oversight and some recommendations for implementers should have been given. The suggested text should be placed in a new section, presumably between sections 8 and 9.

Paul Wouters:

The reported of this errata is writing a bis draft for this document where this is indeed already clarified.
See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-05#section-7.2

Resolving as Held for Document Update

--------------------------------------
RFC8229 (draft-ietf-ipsecme-tcp-encaps-10)
--------------------------------------
Title : TCP Encapsulation of IKE and IPsec Packets
Publication Date : August 2017
Author(s) : T. Pauly, S. Touati, R. Mantha
Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source : IP Security Maintenance and Extensions
Area : Security
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG

[IPsec] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8229… RFC Errata System