(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?
Informational. This is a problem statement and requirements document.
(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 the problem of enabling a large number of
systems to communicate directly using IPsec to protect the traffic
between them. It then expands on the requirements for such a solution.
Manual configuration of all possible tunnels is too cumbersome in many
such cases. In other cases the IP address of endpoints change or the
endpoints may be behind NAT gateways, making static configuration
impossible. The Auto Discovery VPN solution is chartered to address
these requirements.
Working Group Summary:
This document has the consensus of the ipsecme WG. There was nothing of
note in the WG process.
1. Summary
This is a document writeup for draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem-05,
prepared by Paul Hoffman for Sean Turner.
The document lists the requirements and likely use cases for
auto-discovery IPsec VPNs. These VPNs automate configuration when a very
large number of hosts and networks must communicate over IPsec in
environments where static configuration is not appropriate. There are
already a number of proprietary solutions to this problem, and this
document is meant as a precursor to the IETF possibly working on a
standardized interoperable solution.
This document is appropriate for Informational because it lists
requirements and scenarios, not a protocol.
2. Review and Consensus
The document was reviewed by many people in the WG over many months and
there is strong consensus to publish. There is one possible open issue
from one WG participant, but that can be dealt with during IETF review.
3. Intellectual Property
Both authors have stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any
IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance
with BCPs 78 and 79. There was no WG discussion about any IPR
disclosures regarding this document.