Re: [IPsec] Some comments to draft-plmrs-ipsecme-ipsec-ikev2-context-definition-01

Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> Thu, 06 March 2014 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <kivinen@iki.fi>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA9931A0084 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:51:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Fj_T7mMTTvTY for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:51:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.kivinen.iki.fi [IPv6:2001:1bc8:100d::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C5161A0135 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:51:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s26Ipi4b025122 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2014 20:51:44 +0200 (EET)
Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (8.14.7/8.12.11) id s26IphoK005724; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 20:51:43 +0200 (EET)
X-Authentication-Warning: fireball.kivinen.iki.fi: kivinen set sender to kivinen@iki.fi using -f
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <21272.50111.445075.959734@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 20:51:43 +0200
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To: Daniel Palomares <daniel.palomares.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHf5+hpsbtGsZPeWEdBe2-SStNugUz5D0T7xChPM_S1w3TZXiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <21271.44610.414071.370642@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi> <CAHf5+hpsbtGsZPeWEdBe2-SStNugUz5D0T7xChPM_S1w3TZXiQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.3.1 (x86_64--netbsd)
X-Edit-Time: 1 min
X-Total-Time: 0 min
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/kqf-iLtudOYM0HpImFdHv3b3I98
Cc: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Some comments to draft-plmrs-ipsecme-ipsec-ikev2-context-definition-01
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 06 Mar 2014 18:51:54 -0000

Daniel Palomares writes:
> So, would you think it is a good idea to add this information to the draft (I
> mean the new requirements when IKE_SAs and IPsec_SAs are on separated nodes)?
> ... Or instead, would you think it would be good to ignore how applications
> are managing their IPsec_SAs and IKE_SAs and  just delete the sentence " Note
> that IKEv2 and IPsec session do not need to be on the same node as IKEv2 and
> IPsec context are different".

We definately need to add text explaining the situation, as it is
important that implementors understand the RFC5996 requirement. 

> We could also just mention that we wish to make clear that there are
> parameters related to the IKE_SA and others for the IPsec_SA.
-- 
kivinen@iki.fi