[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.

[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.

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.