State of play with Shim6 documents
Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Sun, 14 January 2007 23:03 UTC
Envelope-to: shim6-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:05:36 +0000
Message-Id: <7.0.0.16.2.20070115070122.042beea8@apnic.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:03:14 +1100
To: shim6-wg <shim6@psg.com>
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
Subject: State of play with Shim6 documents
Cc: kurtis@kurtis.pp.se
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Working from the minutes of the SHIM6 WG meeting in November, and looking at the mailing list traffic since then it appears that we are about as close to submitting the HBA and Failure Detection shim6 documents to the IESG as we'll ever be, but that the Protocol specification document requires a little more discussion on a number of topics (noted below) and definitely another rev of the draft. Here's the state, as I understand it, relative to the comments raised in the Last Call and in the IETF 67the Working Group meeting 1. HBA (draft-ietf-shim6-hba-02.txt ) -- IPR issues - we appear to have reached a level of consensus with acceptance of this document in the light of the Ericsson and Microsoft IPR statements -- IANA considerations - no further issues -- Security Considerations - no further issues 2. Shim6 Protocol (draft-ietf-shim6-proto-07.txt) -- IPSEC - text added to the draft as noted in the WG meeting -- Provide SHIM 6 security based on IPSec SAs - no further action -- ULID Security Mechanism - no further issues -- DOS attacks on the context tag set - no consensus for further change -- Context Forking - no further issues -- CGA Key Length - text added to the draft as noted in the WG meeting -- Broken Flag - no further issues 3. Failure Detection (draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection-07.txt) -- Behaviour Section - text added per comments Since then we've had a review of proto-7 by Iljitsch van Beijnum (11 December http://ops.ietf.org/lists/shim6/msg01742.html), as well as a number of other suggestions regarding thos document The major issues raised have been were: * context tag This review revisited the topic of inclusion of the context tag in the shim6 header. Followup postings to this were at ( http://ops.ietf.org/lists/shim6/msg01772.html, and http://ops.ietf.org/lists/shim6/msg01777.html) As far as I can tell there is no apparent WG consensus to alter the existing text at this point in time, * congestion control It also noted issues regarding TCP congestion control. A TCPM approach (http://ops.ietf.org/lists/shim6/msg01788.html) is described in the document http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tcpm/draft-schuetz-tcpm-tcp-rlci-00.txt There appears to agreement to reference this draft in the proto document in order to address this issue. * explicit shim6 error message (the lack thereof) The review proposed a shim6 error message (http://ops.ietf.org/lists/shim6/msg01769.html) One posting in support of this (http://ops.ietf.org/lists/shim6/msg01775.html) **** Its not clear what the WG want to do on this. Suggestions? **** * TCP Checksum Failure The review noted that any intermediary system that performed a TCP checkum would fail. Proposal to add a middlebox consideration section to point out the problem and an idea to use some form of probe mechanism to detect paths with this problem Alternative proposal for the SHIM to alter the TCP and UDP checksums to match the selected locators on outgoing and match the ULIDs on incoming. **** Its not clear what the WG want to do on this. Suggestions? **** * Control Message length Text proposed (http://ops.ietf.org/lists/shim6/msg01780.html) Are we in agreement with this suggestion? * Sundry The review also listed a number of grammar errors, typos and suggestions relating to terminology These appear, on the whole, to have been accepted by the document editor (http://ops.ietf.org/lists/shim6/msg01774.html) * Changes to the shim message exchange Proposed in http://ops.ietf.org/lists/shim6/msg01756.html This suggestion appears to have been accepted by the document editor Also http://ops.ietf.org/lists/shim6/msg01758.html * Receiving Receiving payload without extension headers This suggestion appears to have been accepted by the document editor So we are almost ready with these documents, and as far as I can tell there is a rough consensus for the HBA and failure detection document, but a clear need to resolve the outstanding issues with the proto document and incorporate the changes as noted above. The three topics that I see from the mailing list as being unresolved at this stage are: * explicit shim6 error message (the lack thereof) Its not clear what the WG want to do on this. Suggestions? * TCP Checksum Failure Its not clear what the WG want to do on this. Suggestions? * Control Message length Text proposed (http://ops.ietf.org/lists/shim6/msg01780.html) Are we in agreement with this suggestion? thanks, Geoff & Kurtis
- Re: State of play with Shim6 documents Brian E Carpenter
- RE: State of play with Shim6 documents Henderson, Thomas R
- Re: State of play with Shim6 documents Brian E Carpenter
- Re: State of play with Shim6 documents Sébastien Barré
- RE: State of play with Shim6 documents Henderson, Thomas R
- Re: State of play with Shim6 documents Geoff Huston
- State of play with Shim6 documents Geoff Huston
- Re: State of play with Shim6 documents Shinta Sugimoto
- Re: State of play with Shim6 documents Erik Nordmark
- RE: State of play with Shim6 documents Henderson, Thomas R
- Re: State of play with Shim6 documents Erik Nordmark
- RE: State of play with Shim6 documents Henderson, Thomas R