IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] IPsecME WG Adoption call for draft-pwouters-ipsecme-multi-sa-performance

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 10 November 2022 15:26 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 7B7FBC1522AD for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 07:26:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IGqBmINHSVoQ for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 07:26:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::85]) (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 404EAC1522CE for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 07:26:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4N7Qfd4DYBz3d7; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 16:26:33 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1668093993; bh=O8A1UerY1C5WtUL5ORTpi0EqKrgIk+lFlrG6soKQHgk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=oPkFcawrMV0pHA96sSh54lNvkUeh6Tkn8eiVmkSjgv/yQEstfLkXxStDce3dtyZPv dWn/13p6c6wLxjQ98/TrWOdQcT0f+x92B6Amfp/7aBnifQoDryrkRunlycqIDAPIYd 0Hii+Q1uTbN3ES8Afh3kdYRCUNLllYCDuhhIN+hk=
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 SBV7JSdoJLAI; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 16:26:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 16:26:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AE63B408ADB; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:26:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB0C3408ADA; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:26:31 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:26:31 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: "Pierre Pfister (ppfister)" <ppfister=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
cc: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>, "ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <F82E680F-DA37-4798-87C7-652C3FDF0D82@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <20a6e992-49e8-ae88-8d8-35eefd4ffbc@nohats.ca>
References: <25451.58560.690380.833165@fireball.acr.fi> <F82E680F-DA37-4798-87C7-652C3FDF0D82@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/KRU7YRYKDoU6Qw__UVq-0La4WuQ>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] IPsecME WG Adoption call for draft-pwouters-ipsecme-multi-sa-performance
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 10 Nov 2022 15:26:41 -0000

On Thu, 10 Nov 2022, Pierre Pfister (ppfister) wrote:

> Since I doubt the working group would have the time and energy to work on two different solutions, my support to this draft's adoption is conditioned to whether the authors plan to consider addressing our concerns listed above.

Speaking with no hats on here:

Once the document is adopted, this question is not up to the authors but
up to the working group.


Putting author hat on:

I think this solution is such a small solution and already has running
code, that I would prefer the WG to quickly move this on, while also
beginning a separate discussion on how to do various different scaling
issues (and multi-cpu) in another way, eg by trying to work on an ESPv4
version. But I would be sad if that work, which I expect will take some
time, would delay this draft.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email