Re: [IPsec] Mirja Kuehlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipsecme-tcp-encaps-09: (with DISCUSS)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

It seems like most of the issues are resolved here, except for that of
muxing
IKE and non-IKE protocols on the same port (especially 443). My
understanding
is that (although we may not like it) it's nevertheless a common practice,
and
yet we can't levy the requirement that no other protocol start with
IKETCP<whatever>,
so it seems like what we need is a warning note and potentially a request
to reserve
this string for some set of common protocols (HTTP,...?).

Mirja, would that work for you?

-Ekr


On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On May 3, 2017 05:54, "Mirja Kühlewind" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I didn't propose to obsolete RFC3947 in this document. I guess you can
> also file an error for this if you don't want to take any further actions.
> However, for updating the IANA registry, I would say the right action is to
> do this simply by IESG approval for UDP then.
>
>
> Fwiw, that would work for me.
>
> Spencer
>
>
>
> Mirja
>
>
>
> On 03.05.2017 11:12, Tero Kivinen wrote:
>
>> Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) writes:
>>
>>> my thinking was that the main problem is that 3947 was not obsoleted
>>> and I’m assuming we need a document to fix that.
>>>
>>
>> This is partly issue, but it is not issue we need to solve here, as
>> this document is not something that should obsolete 3947.
>>
>> Also 3947 only defines extension for the IKEv1 (RFC2409) and that is
>> already obsoleted, so effectively RFC3947 is already obsoleted, as
>> there is no way to implement 3947 without implementing obsoleted
>> protocol...
>>
>> This issue is not not important enough to require RFC now.
>>
>> In this case that document could/should also fix the IANA entry for
>>> the UDP port. However, I’m actually not sure what the right
>>> processing would be to fix this forgotten obsolete… maybe other ADs
>>> know better…?
>>>
>>
>> For now I would just leave it as it is, but fix the references in the
>> IANA registry so that document will not be referenced, especially as
>> the original IANA reference was not to the correct RFC in the first
>> place.
>>
>> Otherwise if you don’t want to do this, I don’t think it’s a good
>>> idea to merge kind of unrelated fixes into this spec. We can also
>>> fix that by using the IESG approval process (see RFC5226). I think
>>> that’s the better option!
>>>
>>
>> That is true, but as this document already modifies the TCP/4500
>> reference, fixing the UDP/4500 reference at the same time is not
>> completely unrelated fix.
>>
>> Obsoleting RFC3947 would be unrelated fix.
>>
>>
>