Securing Block Storage Protocols over IP: RFC 3723 Requirements Update
for IPsec v3
PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (STORM WG Co-Chair)
(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?
Proposed Standard RFC is requested because this document updates
RFC 3723, a Proposed Standard RFC as well as multiple additional
Proposed Standard RFCs. Standards Track is indicated as the
intended status in the title page header.
(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:
RFC 3723 specifies IPsec requirements for block storage protocols
over IP (e.g., iSCSI) based on IPsec v2 (RFC 2401 and related RFCs);
those requirements have subsequently been applied to remote direct
data placement protocols, e.g., RDMAP. This document updates RFC
3723's IPsec requirements to IPsec v3 (RFC 4301 and related RFCs) and
makes some changes to required algorithms based on developments in
cryptography since RFC 3723 was published.
Working Group Summary
This document updates the IPsec requirements in RFC 3723 and all RFCs
to which those requirements apply. The iSCSI maintenance work in
the storm WG had originally intended to only update the IPsec
requirements for iSCSI. Two developments changed this approach:
o Cryptographic developments upended RFC 3723's requirement for 3DES
as the mandatory to implement encryption transform. The protocols
to which RFC 3723 applies can approach 3DES's birthday bound and
need to rekey in less than a minute on high-speed links.
o iSER (iSCSI extensions for RDMA) uses RFC 3723 IPsec requirements
twice, once for iSCSI and once for the underlying rddp (iWARP)
RDMA protocol. An RFC 3723 update is needed for the latter in
order to avoid inconsistent IPsec requirements in the same protocol
David McGrew and Steve Kent (respectively) deserve credit for surfacing
the above two concerns that lead to creation of this document. This
document has not been controversial in the storm WG.
This document specifies a profile of widely implemented protocols,
IPsec v2 and v3. The specified cryptographic transforms have been
selected as ones that are commonly available in IPsec implementations.
Sean Turner (SEC AD) and Paul Hoffman (ipsecme WG chair) were both
notably helpful in providing advice on transform selection. Yaron
Sheffer (ipsecme WG chair) provided a thorough review that significantly
improved the quality of this document. Tom Talpey (storm WG chair)
provided a thorough WG Last Call review.
The document shepherd is very pleased with the help received from
both ipsecme WG co-chairs and the AD responsible for the ipsecme WG.
Document Shepherd: David Black (storm WG co-chair)
Responsible Area Director: Martin Stiemerling (Transport)
(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 Document Shepherd is the primary editor of this document, and
has reviewed its text in detail, most recently in dealing with WG
Last Call comments. The Document Shepherd believes that this
document is ready for RFC publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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?
(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
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
(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 storm (STORage Maintenance) WG is a maintenance WG that works on
a number of storage technologies, and hence not every participant is
interested in every technology. The members of the WG who are
interested in the application of IPsec to the WG's protocols
understand and agree with this document.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
idnits 2.12.17 finds a number of things to complain about, none of
which are actual problems:
- The IPsec v2 RFCs are necessary normative references, even though
they have obsolete status.
- There is no point in repeating the long list of updated RFCs
in the abstract.
- idnits warns about possible content from before 10 November 2008;
there is no such content.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
No. There are normative references to two Internet-Drafts. One of
them (iSER) is aleady in the RFC Editor's Queue and the other (iSCSI
Consolidated) is expected to join it there shortly.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
(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.
This document does not change the status of any RFCs. The updated
RFCs are discussed in the document.
(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; this document has no IANA considerations.
(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.
(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.