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

Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <bew@cisco.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 BC2BA11E8133 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:36:07 -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 0fkKIvtlvSnT for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CA5511E8173 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=265; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1363300562; x=1364510162; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=IcsvjlqIvJXQJVNHRKbXdq0Xnsqg2j6wL5wmiAEL4QA=; b=Ash9z1RanMjfCpS/a9zb9O28+4l6+m/0iXNpHlgZSEgQBRxEznOetaa9 kUdHLZZls+5hEMIGqzVMBFPVAw86L7EtzkRzjwPkeeMGTup2dhOObKgk7 N94mWSxj74XuDcTsElBYSoNStf0WFatpRV7Y1InBOM1MjMZ6MXporoN4C c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AggFAO9PQlGrRDoI/2dsb2JhbABDhRS/cYFnFnSCLAEBBDo/EAtGVwaIJsIQjmMzB4JfYQOWWIV9iwWDJiA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,848,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="72958826"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Mar 2013 22:36:00 +0000
Received: from [10.21.76.164] ([10.21.76.164]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2EMZx4g011131; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 22:36:00 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <AF3F21AE-8695-47FC-BC41-4097635D0C95@vpnc.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:36:02 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DF386516-BBC2-4CFF-ABC8-B4239A7D3B68@cisco.com>
References: <20799.34490.611737.922474@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi> <AF3F21AE-8695-47FC-BC41-4097635D0C95@vpnc.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: IPsecme WG <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 22:36:07 -0000

My answer:

- I would prefer the WG to continue working on IKEv2 over TCP

If this is not the consensus, I agree with Yoav: I would prefer that we clear up the situation with Microsoft's IPR before working on standardizing IKEv2 fragmentation.

Brian