Re: [IPsec] Clarifications and Implementation Guidelines for using TCP Encapsulation in IKEv2 draft

[With chair hat on]

Yes, the charter says that we are to make a guidance document. If the working group feels that it’s better to put the specification and guidance in a single document, we can work on that and clear it with the ADs. 

Charters can be modified.

Yoav

> On 29 Apr 2020, at 18:42, Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tommy,
> 
>> Hi Valery,
>> 
>> Thanks for bringing this up again. Would you be interested in making this
> an
>> RFC8229bis instead? I think it would be most useful for an implementer to
> fold
>> some of these clarifications into the main text itself. How do you feel
> about
>> that?
> 
> I'd be happy to do it. I also think that a -bis document is more useful.
> The reason that this draft is not a rfc8229bis is that one and half
> year ago it was a general feeling that more experience need to be
> collected before -bis document should be issued. Now it is almost
> 3 years since rfc8229 is published, I agree that it's probably time to start
> preparing -bis.
> 
> One concern is the current WG charter - 
> it seems to me that it only allows
> clarification document and not a -bis.
> It is a question to our chairs and AD - are
> we allowed to proceed with rfc8229bis document
> with the current charter text or should we update it
> and ask for re-chartering?
> 
> Regards,
> Valery.
> 
> 
>> Best,
>> Tommy
>> 
>>> On Apr 28, 2020, at 2:54 AM, Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> a one and half year ago at IETF 103 in Bangkok I presented
>>> draft-smyslov-ipsecme-tcp-guidelines
>>> "Clarifications and Implementation Guidelines for using TCP
>>> Encapsulation in IKEv2"
>>> 
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-smyslov-ipsecme-tcp-guidelines/).
>>>> From my recollection of the meeting and from minutes it was a general
>>> feeling in the room that
>>> this document was useful for implementers, since it clarified some
>>> subtle issues that were not covered in RFC 8229. However, at that time
>>> no adoption call was issued since this work would require to update
>>> the IPSECME charter.
>>> It took over a year to adopt the updated charter and now the WG is
>>> chartered for this work with this draft as a possible starting point.
>>> The text in the charter:
>>> 
>>> 	RFC8229, published in 2017, specifies how to encapsulate
>>> 	IKEv2 and ESP traffic in TCP. Implementation experience has
>>> 	revealed that not all situations are covered in RFC8229, and that
> may
>>> 	lead to interoperability problems or to suboptimal performance. The
>>> WG
>>> 	will provide a document to give implementors more guidance about how
>>> to use
>>> 	reliable stream transport in IKEv2 and clarify some issues that have
>>> been
>>> 	discovered.
>>> 
>>> However, since it was so long since the WG last discussed the draft,
>>> the chairs asked me to send a message to the list to determine whether
>>> there is still an interest in the WG to proceed with this work with
>>> this draft as a starting point.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Valery.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IPsec mailing list
>>> IPsec@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
> 