IPsec Cluster Problem Statement
RFC 6027
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14 |
09 | (System) | Notify list changed from ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha@ietf.org to (None) |
2010-10-14 |
09 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
2010-10-14 |
09 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: changed to 'RFC 6027' by Cindy Morgan |
2010-10-14 |
09 | (System) | RFC published |
2010-07-19 |
09 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2010-07-19 |
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2010-07-19 |
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2010-07-19 |
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2010-07-19 |
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2010-07-19 |
09 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2010-07-15 |
09 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2010-07-15 |
09 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2010-07-14 |
09 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
2010-07-14 |
09 | (System) | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer by system |
2010-07-04 |
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-09.txt |
2010-07-02 |
09 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-07-01 |
2010-07-01 |
09 | Russ Housley | State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Russ Housley |
2010-07-01 |
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Recuse from Yes by Jari Arkko |
2010-07-01 |
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2010-07-01 |
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2010-07-01 |
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-08 | |
2010-06-30 |
09 | David Harrington | [Ballot comment] 1) in 3.7, I think it would make the document easier to read if you spelled out the LS and HS acronyms. 2) … [Ballot comment] 1) in 3.7, I think it would make the document easier to read if you spelled out the LS and HS acronyms. 2) "the other half of the flow" - s/the the/the/ is "the other half" a response, or ...; can you clarify, "the other half" doesn't seem very specific. 3) in 3.8 "this looks weird". I don't think the problem is that it looks weird; it's that the peer might respond to the fact that it looks weird and do something like discard it or filter it, and this would cause problems. Simply saying "it looks weird" doesn't really describe this in a clear and unambiguous manner. 4) "Reply packets might arrive ..." I think this should be discussed in the security considerations 5) in section 2, PAD needs to be spelled out or referenced. 6) aren't RFC2119, IKEv2bis and 4306 normative? Others may be also, but these seem obvious. |
2010-06-30 |
09 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Harrington |
2010-06-30 |
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2010-06-30 |
09 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2010-06-30 |
09 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Stewart Bryant |
2010-06-30 |
09 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2010-06-30 |
09 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo |
2010-06-30 |
09 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] INTRODUCTION, paragraph 4: > An agreed terminology, problem statement and > requirements will allow the IPSECME WG to consider development of … [Ballot comment] INTRODUCTION, paragraph 4: > An agreed terminology, problem statement and > requirements will allow the IPSECME WG to consider development of > IPsec/IKEv2 mechanisms to simplify cluster implementations. Suggest to remove text that talks about IETF WGs, which are after all ephemeral, from this document before publication as an RFC. |
2010-06-30 |
09 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2010-06-29 |
09 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2010-06-28 |
09 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre |
2010-06-28 |
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-08.txt |
2010-06-27 |
09 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] I think some of the references should be Normative. |
2010-06-27 |
09 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-06-24 |
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-07.txt |
2010-06-24 |
09 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2010-06-22 |
09 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2010-06-20 |
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder. |
2010-06-17 |
09 | Sean Turner | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-07-01 by Sean Turner |
2010-06-17 |
09 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2010-06-17 |
09 | Sean Turner | Ballot has been issued by Sean Turner |
2010-06-17 |
09 | Sean Turner | Created "Approve" ballot |
2010-06-10 |
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2010-06-10 |
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2010-06-10 |
09 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2010-06-10 |
09 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan |
2010-06-10 |
09 | Sean Turner | Last Call was requested by Sean Turner |
2010-06-10 |
09 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2010-06-10 |
09 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2010-06-10 |
09 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2010-06-10 |
09 | Sean Turner | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested::AD Followup by Sean Turner |
2010-06-10 |
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2010-06-10 |
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-06.txt |
2010-06-10 |
09 | Sean Turner | State Changes to Publication Requested::Revised ID Needed from Publication Requested::AD Followup by Sean Turner |
2010-06-10 |
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2010-06-10 |
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-05.txt |
2010-06-09 |
09 | Sean Turner | State Changes to Publication Requested::Revised ID Needed from Publication Requested by Sean Turner |
2010-06-09 |
09 | Sean Turner | [Note]: 'Yaron Sheffer (yaronf.ietf@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Sean Turner |
2010-06-01 |
09 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Yaron Sheffer (yaronf.ietf@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan |
2010-06-01 |
09 | Cindy Morgan | Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-04 (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, … Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-04 (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? The document shepherd is Yaron Sheffer, co-chair of the ipsecme WG. I have reviewed it and believe it is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has had in-depth review within the ipsecme WG. I am not aware of any non-WG reviews. I do not have any concerns about these reviews. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No concerns, the document lies fully within the ipsecme WG's area of expertise. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. I have no such concerns. There have been no IPR disclosures. (1.e) 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? There is wide WG consensus. (1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.) No, there were no such conflicts. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes, I have personally verified that. No formal review criteria are applicable. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. No issues identified. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The document creates no IANA requirements. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? There are no such sections. (1.k) 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 Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document describes the problems associated with clustering of IKE/ IPsec VPN endpoints using the existing set of standards. It is claimed that the amount and volatility of IKE/IPsec state result in numerous challenges for such clustering. The document defines terminology for high availability and load sharing clusters implementing IKE and IPsec, and describes gaps in the existing standards. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was no controversy other than a prolonged discussion on terminology. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? This is a problem statement, not a protocol. However it is noted that the vast majority of IPsec VPN products support some form of clustering, and there is a strong feeling in the working group that this document is a step forward in allowing better interoperability of clustered systems. |
2010-06-01 |
09 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2010-06-01 |
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-04.txt |
2010-05-12 |
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-03.txt |
2010-04-15 |
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-02.txt |
2010-04-14 |
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-01.txt |
2010-02-25 |
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-00.txt |