Hi Tommy, > Hi Valery, > > Thanks for bringing this up again. Would you be interested in making this an > RFC8229bis instead? I think it would be most useful for an implementer to fold > some of these clarifications into the main text itself. How do you feel about > that?
I'd be happy to do it. I also think that a -bis document is more useful. The reason that this draft is not a rfc8229bis is that one and half year ago it was a general feeling that more experience need to be collected before -bis document should be issued. Now it is almost 3 years since rfc8229 is published, I agree that it's probably time to start preparing -bis. One concern is the current WG charter - it seems to me that it only allows clarification document and not a -bis. It is a question to our chairs and AD - are we allowed to proceed with rfc8229bis document with the current charter text or should we update it and ask for re-chartering? Regards, Valery. > Best, > Tommy > > > On Apr 28, 2020, at 2:54 AM, Valery Smyslov <smyslov.i...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > a one and half year ago at IETF 103 in Bangkok I presented > > draft-smyslov-ipsecme-tcp-guidelines > > "Clarifications and Implementation Guidelines for using TCP > > Encapsulation in IKEv2" > > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-smyslov-ipsecme-tcp-guidelines/). > >> From my recollection of the meeting and from minutes it was a general > > feeling in the room that > > this document was useful for implementers, since it clarified some > > subtle issues that were not covered in RFC 8229. However, at that time > > no adoption call was issued since this work would require to update > > the IPSECME charter. > > It took over a year to adopt the updated charter and now the WG is > > chartered for this work with this draft as a possible starting point. > > The text in the charter: > > > > RFC8229, published in 2017, specifies how to encapsulate > > IKEv2 and ESP traffic in TCP. Implementation experience has > > revealed that not all situations are covered in RFC8229, and that may > > lead to interoperability problems or to suboptimal performance. The > > WG > > will provide a document to give implementors more guidance about how > > to use > > reliable stream transport in IKEv2 and clarify some issues that have > > been > > discovered. > > > > However, since it was so long since the WG last discussed the draft, > > the chairs asked me to send a message to the list to determine whether > > there is still an interest in the WG to proceed with this work with > > this draft as a starting point. > > > > Regards, > > Valery. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IPsec mailing list > > IPsec@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
