[IPsec] Protocol Action: 'IKEv2 Fragmentation' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation-10.txt)
The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Tue, 02 September 2014 22:04 UTC
Return-Path: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
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 902DD1A0720; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 l6XJZN0hj5mw; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65CA91A0792; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p5
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20140902220443.1541.40721.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:04:43 -0700
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/K0fi1wd7RAdQivBq4C3yPCdhvh8
Cc: ipsecme mailing list <ipsec@ietf.org>, ipsecme chair <ipsecme-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: [IPsec] Protocol Action: 'IKEv2 Fragmentation' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation-10.txt)
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 22:04:48 -0000
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'IKEv2 Fragmentation' (draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation-10.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the IP Security Maintenance and Extensions Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Kathleen Moriarty and Stephen Farrell. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation/ Technical Summary This document describes a method to avoid IP fragmentation in large IKEv2 messages. It shows how to perform fragmentation in IKEv2 itself, replacing them by series of smaller messages. This allows IKEv2 messages to traverse network devices that don't allow IP fragments to pass through. Given that this is a protocol extension, it is meant to be a Proposed Standard. Working Group Summary Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? The WG discussion of the document was fairly good, with about average participation (which for the IPsecME WG means "the chairs had to beg a bit for more participants, but we then got them"). We also got a "TSVDIR-ish review" of the draft, which got good discussion on the list. There was a reasonable amount of give-and- take, and the WG Last Call was uncontentious. A significant point was brought up during IETF Last Call, and was added to the Security Considerations as a result of the SecDir review. A few issues came up during the first IESG review. Another series of edits occurred along with detailed reviews by a couple of area experts. The edited draft went back through WG last call and is ready for IESG review again. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? Personnel Paul Hoffman (IPsecME WG co-chair) is the document shepherd and Kathleen Moriarty is the responsible AD.