Re: [IPsec] [Lwip] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-03.txt

Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 24 March 2021 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
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 4F1243A2EBC; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.086
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.086 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 oG-iL42DX0OB; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa2e.google.com (mail-vk1-xa2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a2e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3526D3A2EB7; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa2e.google.com with SMTP id 11so5539457vkx.6; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kbM4qjbH9bS+Blur2mtZhNSNGppyAKTcmC/rsF1B/hU=; b=mBgVifj90t6HnjQ2OpgJb35jvCfC0UeikXzk4MSgTimZ+vwD84I64mx9NhXo8zzz8B 5hgXjz9K7nHyv9OJCV/8olMDw8HwIc99Hhd5HGMZ2eqTjpWwwisHHAT0F5torEOVLIcT miWeKRc4xTJJM8ZlvjJ3XBKCgf36kLYMlt5k/AurTI0eVuutlBRiWdkXeuwAkl1bSvWv bTKZzXl+uWk1d0wQprvlb1JYB5nHbpq0ymuCekUoWNUzrjtQ3AnFVJjCw9lGwYa3oKQ9 nOPnHLN5m+ftoV+Tj5DkmoBz61Gl4bhlVs6Wm+fIcWzK5AcneYoO8qoQkrP2iNbrqdO9 u2aA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kbM4qjbH9bS+Blur2mtZhNSNGppyAKTcmC/rsF1B/hU=; b=cDLY81Vf0zMQtbpztJqsJxAv5i4thZ+KQ6ZEheGjW0xKEmHut6flIYoUxuqNCUeOxq Mrmz6ueaHFgI8o4Zjxm2LEFEZWBPwJDy9A+3KBAH8nr6pwP0IsmGdhk7XKqM5S9D921L M72pCfGw4YrJPsbtWla37rPOF85kaBQpMsRi4FVwsz+Ve522O7YFf0WoiTVG81Js9ByN Lw8mHTGS3bDzSxWSNwaDoeXJyfCM6KoeWlsAtVNDMY229bF6N+bX0b1TYXQYfBQsw+Sq IX9wIyK+lCPGHMjxtVoqX5WrT/75P4Wej4d2kcauAuxahvjXer8u0rSJMCMsnPfE1Ryj 7URQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531B4hEJpOCjKxjSgGGhJ+QqgbpwOYJYMzMgL+w6vhe6Scy4uuvV 5CPjxNXvnG7boIJRBclHPJHjrR6ijpDqpn337BdMZvPrPI0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwLYfCwL0uTzUyI04zMVcwtuYh/aAZqFMokE9LQv/BXh6HtFRllJT54h+5YgQsA2mRnt4OmflRry6RwnL3JU4s=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:9ed8:: with SMTP id h207mr2175463vke.13.1616599402206; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161659867119.23254.7804822530840108376@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <161659867119.23254.7804822530840108376@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 11:23:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CADZyTkmQYHGMfNYYC4dNg3adt6+0S6BrfVSShodNj3Dtc3-9UQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: lwip@ietf.org
Cc: IPsecME WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001cd9a505be49e1f4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/NR7oBAuSrWQF5S18Mxa0A65PwDg>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] [Lwip] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-03.txt
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: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:23:29 -0000

Hi,

Please find below the updated version of the draft as detailed in [1] and
[2] as well as some nits.
The main changes are that we introduced some more context on
the constraints a device may have which could clarify the motivations for
the optimizations that were detailed. This includes the context being
provided in the abstract, introduction, as well as for SPI, SN sections.

Having not heard any feedbacks to [1] and [2] I believe these updates
address the concerns raised.

Yours,
Daniel

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lwip/IHyy2OCA-hWWfjxDrkX-x1yAvFI/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lwip/vBtGKO_0GU_SUNkfu-iSUC-Bq9A/

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:11 AM <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:

>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Light-Weight Implementation Guidance WG
> of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : Minimal ESP
>         Authors         : Daniel Migault
>                           Tobias Guggemos
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-03.txt
>         Pages           : 14
>         Date            : 2021-03-24
>
> Abstract:
>    This document describes a minimal implementation of the IP
>    Encapsulation Security Payload (ESP) defined in RFC 4303.  Its
>    purpose is to enable implementation of ESP with a minimal set of
>    options to remain compatible with ESP as described in RFC 4303.  A
>    minimal version of ESP is not intended to become a replacement of the
>    RFC 4303 ESP.  Instead, a minimal implementation is expected to be
>    optimized for constrained environment while remaining interoperable
>    with implementations of RFC 4303 ESP.  Constrains include among other
>    limiting the number of flash writes, handling frequent wakeup / sleep
>    states, limiting wakeup time, or reducing the use of random
>    generation.
>
>    This document describes what is required from RFC 4303 ESP as well as
>    various ways to optimize compliance with RFC 4303 ESP.
>
>    This document does not update or modify RFC 4303, but provides a
>    compact description of how to implement the minimal version of the
>    protocol.  If this document and RFC 4303 conflicts, then RFC 4303 is
>    the authoritative description.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-03
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-03
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-03
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lwip mailing list
> Lwip@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
>


-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson