Re: [IPsec] Informal poll on IKEv2 { over TCP | fragmentation }

<Paul_Koning@Dell.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <Paul_Koning@Dell.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 513AC11E8227 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id azxuKps+GKKi for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ausxipps301.us.dell.com (ausxipps301.us.dell.com [143.166.148.223]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B24C211E821C for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-LoopCount0: from 10.170.28.41
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,846,1355119200"; d="scan'208";a="95811992"
From: <Paul_Koning@Dell.com>
To: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Thread-Topic: [IPsec] Informal poll on IKEv2 { over TCP | fragmentation }
Thread-Index: AQHOIKfGtppvcHMXwEC4ogYnb7OXPpil6qGA
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:42:29 +0000
Message-ID: <C75A84166056C94F84D238A44AF9F6AD3C9FE0@AUSX10MPC103.AMER.DELL.COM>
References: <20799.34490.611737.922474@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi> <AF3F21AE-8695-47FC-BC41-4097635D0C95@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <AF3F21AE-8695-47FC-BC41-4097635D0C95@vpnc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.173.224.146]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <B3D00393DED658418658007F19F5887B@dell.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Informal poll on IKEv2 { over TCP | fragmentation }
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:42:40 -0000

Our answer:

- I would prefer the WG to stop working on IKEv2 over TCP and instead work on standardizing IKEv2 fragmentation

	paul

On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> <chair-hat on>
> 
> It is seeming that consensus is trending towards "let's document the fragmentation method some vendors are already doing instead of finishing IKEv2-over-TCP", but I would like to check that. Please respond to the informal poll below.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman
> 
> 
> - I would prefer the WG to continue working on IKEv2 over TCP
> 
> - I would prefer the WG to stop working on IKEv2 over TCP and instead work on standardizing IKEv2 fragmentation
> 
> - I would prefer the WG to continue working on IKEv2 over TCP and also work on standardizing IKEv2 fragmentation
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec