As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
The type of RFC being requested is Standard track document. This document
defines a framing protocol and network peer behavior that allows
implementations to run the existing IKEv2 and ESP protocols over TCP. This is
the type of RFC indicated on the draft.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
This document describes a method to transport IKE and IPsec packets over a TCP
connection for traversing network middleboxes that may block IKE negotiation
over UDP. This method, referred to as TCP encapsulation, involves sending both
IKE packets for Security Association establishment and ESP packets over a TCP
connection. This method is intended to be used as a fallback option when IKE
cannot be negotiated over UDP.
Working Group Summary
The draft came to the working group out of a need to standardize a push towards
adding TCP support for IKE that was coming from several sources (VPN vendors
and cellular carriers using IKE for telephony services). Some of the major
changes that the WG made early on compared to existing proposals from external
bodies was to remove the reliance on encapsulating IKE traffic within TLS. Much
of the other WG discussion later on in review revolved around how to best
manage the connection establishment and teardown transitions.
Document Quality
There are several early implementations of the protocol that were made to test
interoperability (notably, Cisco and Apple). The draft also received input from
vendors that have previously deployed proprietary versions of IPsec over TCP.
Personnel
The Document Shepherd is Tero Kivinen. The responsible AD is Kathleen Moriarty.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
I have reviewed document few times, and provided some feedback, which has been
taken in to the account for latest versions. The document seems to be ready to
be published.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
There has been several reviews from the active IPsecME WG members of this
draft, and I think we have had enough reviews in the WG.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.
No broader review is needed. There is the normal issue with TCP inside TCP (or
TCP inside the ESP, which is then inside the TCP) but the performance
considerations sections already point this out.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.
No concerns came up in the WG with the current version of the document.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
Yes.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
The active members of the WG have all participated in the discussion about this
draft, and given their feedback. We've discussed the draft over the course of
several IETF meetings, and there is agreement on the document.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
None found. Idnits compains about several in-document references being missing
as it does not understand that [section 12] refers to this document, not
external document. Similarly idnits complains about the [CERTREQ], [CP] etc,
i.e., the optional parts of the exchanges, as it confuses them as references.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not Applicable.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
No.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
Not applicable. The document does not include any IANA requests.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
Not applicable. The document does not include any IANA requests.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
No applicable.