Skip to main content

Using IPsec to Secure IPv6-in-IPv4 Tunnels
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipsec-tunnels-05

Yes

(David Kessens)

No Objection

(Bill Fenner)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)
(Ted Hardie)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

David Kessens Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2007-01-18) Unknown
From Gen-ART reviewer David Black, referring to the -05 version:

I suggest that an
RFC Editor note be used to insert the following text (much of which
Fred Baker wrote) to explain what "modeled as an interface" means:

  An important consideration in determining whether to use IPsec tunnel
  mode is whether the IPsec tunnel mode SA is modeled as an interface.
  This notion of interface is logical - any time a system, host or
  router, sends a datagram, it has to account for having done so using
  the RFC 2863 Interface MIB.  To do so, the system derives ifIndex from
  the route entry (see InetCidrRouteEntry in RFC 4292) that it uses to
  forward the   datagram, or from the IpDefaultRouterEntry described
  in RFC 4293.  The management information accessed via the ifIndex
  is "the interface" from a management and configuration perspective.

This text should be inserted immediately following this sentence in
Section 5:

  The IPv6 traffic can be protected using transport or tunnel mode.

This will also entail adding informative references to RFCs 2863,
4292 and 4293.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2006-12-14) Unknown
> The reason threat (1) exists is the lack of widespread deployment of
> IPv4 ingress filtering [RFC3704].

I believe it would be more correct to say "lack of universal
deployment" -- it is very widely deployed, just not everywhere.
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2006-12-11) Unknown
  From the SecDir Review by Sean Turner:

  Section 2, 1st para after numbered items: The RFC 4031 list of security
  services also includes access control, data origin authentication,
  rejection of replays, and limited traffic flow confidentiality.  Are
  these not offered?

  Section 5.2, 2nd to last para: s/bu no inter-/but no inter-/
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2006-12-13) Unknown
Folks, thanks for doing a great job on this document both at balancing
RFC 4301 vs RFC 2401 and at handling issues like the PAD.
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown