Well... There may be connection between progressing the draft and these
extensions.
Given how extensions to GDOI where also done by other SDOs, i would like to
understand if
G-IKEv2 has done the best to make extensions as painless as possible,
especially for adopting
extensions previously existing in GDOI. Worst case, G-IKEv2 does make any such
extensions more
difficult than necessary (not what i would think, just thinking paranoid).
Ideally, i would even like to see a small section in G-IKEv2 that outlines how
GDOI extensions
can be mapped to G-IKEv2 . If this waas all registry entries in RFC8052, then
it would
IMHO even be a great exercise for progressing G-IKEv2 to see if equivalent
registry entries for
G-IKEv2 would be sufficient. And the section i am thinking of would for example
just be a
comparison of registry tables.
Cheers
Toerless
On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 10:31:43AM +0300, Valery Smyslov wrote:
> Hi Toerless,
>
> first G-IKEv2 should be published as RFC. The draft is currently in WGLC
> (for a long time),
> but received very few reviews so far (and many thanks to all who reviewed
> it!).
> I'm planning to publish an updated version addressing Daniel's review soon.
>
> Once G-IKEv2 is standardized, there is no problem (IMHO) to do the
> equivalent of RFC8052 with it.
>
> Regards,
> Valery.
>
> > How would someone today do the equivalent of RFC8052 with G-IKEv2 ?
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 04:06:11AM +0000, Fries, Steffen wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've got a question regarding the relation of G-IKEv2 and GDOI.
> > >
> > > I realized that G-IKEv2 will be the successor of GDOI and would have a
> question
> > regarding backward compatibility of payloads defined for GDOI. As the
> underlying
> > exchanges for the base key management changed from IKE to IKEv2 they will
> not
> > be backward compatible. Nevertheless, there have been enhancements of GDOI
> > for protocols used in the power system domain like GOOSE and Sampled
> Values,
> > which lead to the definition of new payloads for the ID, SA TEK and KD
> payloads to
> > accommodate the power system protocol parameters in RFC 8052. Likewise,
> using
> > the same approach new payloads of the same types have been defined to
> > distribute parameters for PTP (Precision Time Protocol) in IEC 62351-9.
> > >
> > > In general, I realized that there are similar payloads available in
> G-IKEv2 but I
> > was not quite sure, if it was a design criterion to have backward
> compatibility for
> > extensions/enhancements defined for GDOI to be usable also in G-IKEv2.
> Could
> > you please shed some light on this?
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > Steffen
> > >
> > > --
> > > Steffen Fries
> > >
> > > Siemens AG
> > > Technology
> > > Cybersecurity & Trust
> > > T CST
> > > Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
> > > 81739 Munich, Germany
> > > Phone: +49 (89) 7805-22928
> > > mailto:[email protected]
> > > www.siemens.com
> > > [Logo]
> > > Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Jim
> Hagemann
> > Snabe; Managing Board: Roland Busch, Chairman, President and Chief
> Executive
> > Officer; Cedrik Neike, Matthias Rebellius, Ralf P. Thomas, Judith Wiese;
> > Registered offices: Berlin and Munich, Germany; Commercial registries:
> Berlin-
> > Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, Munich, HRB 6684; WEEE-Reg.-No. DE 23691322
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IPsec mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
