Thanks, Russ. Will fix in the next iteration. Tero, since this is expiring next week, and the CfA expired last month, would you care to call it?
Yoav > On 12 Aug 2026, at 20:14, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: > > I support adoption. > > I noticed one typo: > > Section 2.1: s/peer than sent the Notify/peer that sent the Notify/ > > Russ > > On Sun, 02 Aug 2026, 00:49 Yoav Nir, <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Not surprisingly, I support adoption. >> >> There are use cases for large payloads; key-exchange with certain >> algorithms, certificates with extensions, CRLs. Even large Config and >> traffic selector payloads could be used for complex protected domains. >> Allowing payloads to grow beyond the 64K limit removes a constraint from >> people extending IKE. With the growing use of reliable transport, using >> large payloads becomes more practical, so we can expect more of it in the >> future. >> >> Yoav >> >> > On 22 Jul 2026, at 20:56, Tero Kivinen via Datatracker <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > This message starts a ipsecme WG Call for Adoption of: >> > draft-nir-ipsecme-big-payload-07 >> > >> > This Working Group Call for Adoption ends on 2026-08-15 >> > >> > Abstract: >> > The messages of the Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) protocol >> > are made up of payloads. The current protocol limits each of these >> > payloads to 64KB by having a 2-byte length field. While this is >> > usually enough, several of the payloads may need to be larger. >> > >> > This document updates RFC 7296 by defining an extension that allows >> > larger payloads. >> > >> > Please reply to this message and indicate whether or not you support >> > adoption >> > of this Internet-Draft by the ipsecme WG. Comments to explain your >> > preference >> > are greatly appreciated. Please reply to all recipients of this message and >> > include this message in your response. >> > >> > Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual >> > Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [2]. >> > Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the >> > provisions >> > of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any. >> > Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be >> > found at [3]. >> > >> > Thank you. >> > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/ >> > [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/ >> > [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/ >> > >> > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nir-ipsecme-big-payload/ >> > >> > There is also an HTMLized version available at: >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-nir-ipsecme-big-payload-07 >> > >> > A diff from the previous version is available at: >> > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-nir-ipsecme-big-payload-07 >> >> __
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
