Re: [IPsec] IPsec maintenance/extensions WG, summary so far

["Vijay Devarapallli" <[e-mail]>]

oops.. I just noticed that you did have the following in the list.

o  Redirecting a VPN client from one gateway to another
  (in a cluster of gateways)

Is this the same? Or did someone else propose this?

Vijay

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Vijay Devarapallli <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Pasi,
>
>  I have one more. Sorry for not posting this earlier.
>
>  There was a proposal coming out of the former MIP6 WG to use IKEv2 to
>  re-direct a mobile node to another home agent. The Binding
>  Update/Binding Acknowledgement exchange between the mobile node and
>  the home agent is always preceded by an IKEv2 exchange for mutual
>  authentication, home address configuration and setting up the required
>  security associations for protecting Mobile IPv6 signaling messages.
>  It was felt that it would be desirable for the home agent to tell the
>  mobile node to go another home agent before the IKEv2 exchange
>  completes. Otherwise the mobile node would have do the IKEv2 exchange
>  with the new home agent all over.
>
>  This proposal for re-directing the mobile node to another home agent
>  during the IKE_SA_INIT exchange was in a ex-MIP6 WG document. There
>  were some issues raised during the IESG review for the IKEv2 re-direct
>  mechanism. So the mechanism was taken out and the rest of the document
>  was published as RFC 5026. One of the concerns expressed was that it
>  could be generic extension to IKEv2 rather than being something
>  specific to Mobile IPv6.
>
>  So I would like to propose to add another work item to the new IPsec
>  WG charter to work on a IKEv2 re-direct mechanism during the
>  IKE_SA_INIT exchange. Much of the details have already been worked out
>  (by the ex-MIP6 WG and then some discussions offline), it is just a
>  matter of writing up a draft. I am in the process of writing up this
>  draft. This is coming a bit late. I hope it can be included in the
>  IPsec re-chartering process.
>
>  Regards,
>  Vijay
>
>
>
>  On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:19 AM,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>  > So far, we've had ~20 people who've expressed some form of support
>  >  for creating a WG. This is good -- many current WGs have less than 20
>  >  people who regularly post to the WG mailing list.
>  >
>  >  However, by my count, we've also had ~20 proposals for work items.
>  >  That obviously does not add up.
>  >
>  >  I agree with Paul's comment about the WG scope: the WG should work
>  >  on things where having a WG is really needed, and we actually have a
>  >  *group* of people interested on participating.
>  >
>  >  Having a WG should not encourage people to develop extensions that
>  >  would not have happened in the absence of a WG (this usually indicates
>  >  they're not widely needed). For some work items that have been
>  >  proposed, an individual draft is IMHO a more appropriate process
>  >  mechanism, and forming a WG would not automatically prevent
>  >  publication of non-WG documents the WG decided not to take.
>  >
>  >  To get some idea on what work items we have most interest in, I've
>  >  collected those proposed so far (with some things vendors are known to
>  >  do in proprietary ways thrown in).
>  >
>  >  Please select the items you think the WG should work on (less than
>  >  ten, please), order them most important first, and for each item,
>  >  indicate what you're willing to do:
>  >
>  >   [E]dit: you're willing to edit the draft corresponding to the work
>  >   item (note: even if we use an individual draft as a starting point,
>  >   this does not automatically determine the editor of the WG item)
>  >
>  >   [C]ontribute: you're willing to propose non-trivial amounts of
>  >   text for the document during its development
>  >
>  >   [R]eview: you're willing to review new revisions of the draft
>  >   regularly (not just during WGLC)
>  >
>  >  For example,
>  >
>  >   [CR] AEAD algorithms in IKEv2
>  >   [R] IPsec document roadmap update
>  >
>  >  would mean that AEAD algorithms is your first priority, and you
>  >  volunteer to contribute and review; and IPsec document roadmap is
>  >  your second priority, and you volunteer to review.
>  >
>  >  You can also propose a work item that isn't on my list.
>  >  However, for the time being, I think PF_KEY work does not fit
>  >  within the scope of the possible WG charter.
>  >
>  >  List follows:
>  >
>  >  o  Update to IKEv2 base specification (possible starting point:
>  >    draft-hoffman-ikev2bis)
>  >
>  >  o  IPsec document roadmap update (possible starting point: RFC 2411)
>  >
>  >  o  Using AEAD algorithms in IKEv2 (possible starting point:
>  >    draft-black-ipsec-ikev2-aead-modes)
>  >
>  >  o  Redirecting a VPN client from one gateway to another
>  >    (in a cluster of gateways)
>  >
>  >  o  IPsec "secure beacon", or detecting whether you need VPN or
>  >    not (possible starting point: draft-sheffer-ipsec-secure-beacon)
>  >
>  >  o  Detecting crashed peers faster (possible starting point:
>  >    draft-nir-ike-qcd)
>  >
>  >  o  IKEv2 session resumption / optimizing IKEv2 handshake when
>  >    connecting again to same peer/cluster of peers (possible
>  >    starting point: draft-sheffer-ipsec-failover)
>  >
>  >  o  Authentication-only IPsec that simplifies packet inspection
>  >    (possible starting points: draft-hoffman-esp-null-protocol,
>  >    draft-grewal-ipsec-traffic-visibility)
>  >
>  >  o  Better IPv6 configuration payloads (possible starting point:
>  >    draft-eronen-ipsec-ikev2-ipv6-config)
>  >
>  >  o  Other work for making sure IKEv1 and IKEv2 work as well as
>  >    possible with IPv6, both from standards and operations standpoint
>  >    (please specify more details if you select this one)
>  >
>  >  o  Running IPsec over TCP (so your VPN works even if the coffee
>  >    shop Wi-Fi has stupid packet filtering)
>  >
>  >  o  GSS-API (or Kerberos) authentication for IKEv2
>  >
>  >  o  Non-EAP-based one-time password authentication (possible
>  >    starting point: draft-sunabhi-otp-ikev2)
>  >
>  >  o  Using GRE "key" header field as IPsec traffic selector (possible
>  >    starting point: draft-ma-softwire-ipsec-gre-demultiplexing-ps)
>  >
>  >  o  Authentication with Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)
>  >    (possible starting point: draft-laganier-ike-ipv6-cga)
>  >
>  >  o  Guidelines for Mandating the Use of IPsec, for RFC430x IPsec
>  >    (possible starting point: draft-bellovin-useipsec)
>  >
>  >  o  Labeled IPsec for RFC 430x IPsec
>  >
>  >  o  IKEv1/IKEv2 co-existence and transition (please specify more
>  >    details if you select this one)
>  >
>  >  o  Setting up GRE tunnels with IKE (possible starting point:
>  >    draft-wu-l3vpn-ipsec-gre-00)
>  >
>  >  o  Connecting IKEv2 peers behind NATs via a "mediation server"
>  >    (possible starting point: draft-brunner-ikev2-mediation)
>  >
>  >  o  Anything that may be needed from IKE/IPsec with respect to
>  >    routing protocol security (please specify more details if
>  >    you select this one)
>  >
>  >  o  Documenting differences in IPsec usage in IETF vs. 3GPP vs.
>  >    3GPP2 vs. WiMAX vs. vendors etc. (please specify more details
>  >    if you select this one)
>  >
>  >  o  IKEv2 CAPTCHA
>  >    (possible starting point: draft-mutaf-spikev2-01.txt)
>  >
>  >  Please reply (on the mailing list) within a week or so -- I will
>  >  then summarize what we have.
>  >
>  >  Best regards,
>  >  Pasi
>  >
>  >  ---
>  >
>  >  P.S. It's good to note that we currently have several other WGs
>  >  working on IPsec:
>  >
>  >  o  BMWG: benchmarking IPsec devices
>  >
>  >  o  BTNS: unauthenticated or leap-of-faith IPsec, channel bindings,
>  >    IPsec APIs for applications (not key management daemons like
>  >    PF_KEY)
>  >
>  >  o  MEXT: interaction between IPsec and Mobile IP, Mobile IP
>  >    specific extensions to IPsec
>  >
>  >  o  MSEC: multicast IPsec
>  >
>  >  o  ROHC: header compression in IPsec tunnel mode SAs
>  >
>  >  o  SOFTWIRE: IPsec tunnels as a softwire, setting those up
>  >    based on BGP etc.
>  >
>  >  These WGs will continue as-is, and e.g. any changes to their charters
>  >  are not in the scope of this discussion. Future work items could be
>  >  considered case-by-case, but the intent is *not* to collect all
>  >  IPsec-related work to one WG.
>  >
>  >  ---
>  >
>  >  P.P.S. Acknowledgement: if you followed how Julien Laganier and
>  >  Marcelo Bagnulo handled the MEXT WG rechartering recently, you'll
>  >  notice I have stolen some ideas from them :-)
>  >  _______________________________________________
>  >  IPsec mailing list
>  >  [e-mail]
>  >  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>  >
>
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec