IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPv6] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ls-6man-ipcomp-exclude-transport-layer-00.txt

"Shihang(Vincent)" <shihang9@huawei.com> Mon, 24 October 2022 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <shihang9@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6B9C14CF12 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 06:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9hcIwyOhrn7i for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 06:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83BD3C14F74E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 06:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml702-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4MwwqL5j1Pz67hYm; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 21:27:42 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepemi500021.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.245) by fraeml702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.51) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2375.31; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 15:29:01 +0200
Received: from kwepemi500020.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.8) by kwepemi500021.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.245) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.31; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 21:28:59 +0800
Received: from kwepemi500020.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.8]) by kwepemi500020.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.8]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.031; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 21:28:59 +0800
From: "Shihang(Vincent)" <shihang9@huawei.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
CC: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [IPv6] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ls-6man-ipcomp-exclude-transport-layer-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHY5Cl8xUyq1I1GpUi/POpOtUKdpa4c7V3Q///O/4CAAM+usA==
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 13:28:59 +0000
Message-ID: <c14cbcafab364b95b7fd801ab5ceff1c@huawei.com>
References: <166623196798.53565.15728669594489380137@ietfa.amsl.com> <14cee747bfbb464686a840996116a6c7@huawei.com> <1226626.1666601313@dyas>
In-Reply-To: <1226626.1666601313@dyas>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.112.41.128]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/D050OGKrIfQyD-SBxz8E5t3DHDY>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ls-6man-ipcomp-exclude-transport-layer-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 13:29:08 -0000

Hi Michael,
Thanks for your comments. You are right that the IPComp is usually used with IPSec. Even the codepoint for CPI is allocated inside IPSec registry.
But the IPSec WG is now concluded. The IPSecME WG is mainly working on the security aspect of IPSec. Actually the compression is orthogonal to the security. 
Which WG do you think is most appropriate for extension to IPComp?

Best,
Hang Shi

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> 
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 4:49 PM
To: Shihang(Vincent) <shihang9@huawei.com>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPv6] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ls-6man-ipcomp-exclude-transport-layer-00.txt


Shihang\(Vincent\) <shihang9=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > I submitted a new draft about extensions to IPComp which compresses IP
    > payload excluding transport layer and handles the out-of-order
    > processing of compressed and un-compressed IP packet.

This is not clearly a 6man thing, as opposed to an IPsec thing.
IPcomp is usually used inside of ESP.  If you are going to use it without IKE, how will you assign CPI?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email