[IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes

This message starts a working group last call (WGLC) on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes, which will conclude on August 16, 2019 at 23:59 UTC . Please review and provide feedback on the -03 version (

[IPsec] Implementations of draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-07

I am working on the IESG writeup for draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2. I'd like to include a note about any implementations of the -07 draft. Anyone have an implementation? Also, have you done any interoperability testing with other implementations? Thanks, Dave ___

[IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-04

This message starts a working group last call (WGLC) on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-04, which will conclude on December 14, 2018 at UTC 23:59. Please review and provide feedback on the -04 version (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2/). Please indicate if you believe th

Re: [IPsec] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-14: (with COMMENT)

Ben, One comment on your COMMENT wearing chair and shepherd hats: > We have to use DNS presentation format for the DS records and not wire > format? The group was "split" on this question. We did a hum, with most responding in the room that they either did not care or had a slight preference fo

Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-10.txt

I think the two "may" entries and the "should" in the following sentence should be capitalized. Regards, Dave From: IPsec on behalf of Tommy Pauly Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 4:28:30 PM To: IPsecME WG; Eric Rescorla Subject: Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-

Re: [IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-04

Please note, this is a follow-up to the previous WGLC. This is to confirm WG consensus on the draft before sending it forward to the IESG. Thanks, Dave > -Original Message- > From: Waltermire, David A. (Fed) > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 9:39 AM > To: IPsecME WG > S

[IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-04

This message starts a working group last call (WGLC) on draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-04, which will conclude on June 29, 2018 at UTC 23:59. Please review and provide feedback on the -04 version (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv/). Please indicate if you believe

[IPsec] Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-00

After reviewing this document, I think the draft looks fairly good. I found a few small issues which should be addressed in the next revision. Comments on these issues are below. We adopted this draft at IETF 100 and I haven't seen any discussion on it since. I'd like to see more review by the

Re: [IPsec] The IPSECME WG has placed draft-moran-suit-architecture in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Please disregard this email. I assigned this draft to the wrong working group. Deepest apologies for the spam. Regards, Dave From: IETF Secretariat Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 8:17:52 AM To: ipsec@ietf.org; ipsecme-cha...@ietf.org; draft-moran-suit-architec

Re: [IPsec] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-06

anks, Dave > -Original Message- > From: Paul Wouters [mailto:p...@nohats.ca] > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 1:38 PM > To: Tommy Pauly > Cc: Waltermire, David A. (Fed) ; IPsecME WG > ; draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns.auth...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [IPsec] Shepherd Review

[IPsec] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-06

Authors, Overall the draft is almost ready to submit to the IESG once the following few small issues are resolved. Section 1.1: There are a few lowercase instances of must, may, and should in the document. You should use text from RFC8174 to indicate that lowercase versions of the keywords a

Re: [IPsec] [Ext] Re: WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns

Paul and Paul, Thanks for the additional review and dialog. I am currently reviewing this document as the shepherd. It would be good to resolve these issues before moving the draft forward. I will watch this thread for a resolution before submitting the shepherd writeup. Thanks, Dave > -

[IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-02

All, This message starts a Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-02. The version to be reviewed can be found here: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-02.txt. Please send your comments, questions, and edit proposals to the WG mail list until November

[IPsec] WGLC on draft-mglt-ipsecme-implicit-iv-04

All, This message starts a Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for draft-mglt-ipsecme-implicit-iv-04. The version to be reviewed can be found here: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mglt-ipsecme-implicit-iv-04.txt. Please send your comments, questions, and edit proposals to the WG mail list until Nove

[IPsec] IETF 98 Meeting Change of Time and Location

The IPsecME meeting at IETF 98 has been moved to a new day, time, and location. The meeting will be Wednesday, March 29 during the afternoon session 1 from 13:00 to 15:00 CDT. We will be in room Montreux 3. Thanks, Dave ___ IPsec mailing list IPsec@

[IPsec] Slides for IPSecME @ IETF 98

We are still in need of slides for draft-pauly-ipsecme-split-dns and draft-fluhrer-qr-ikev2. If I missed your slides or if you haven't sent them, please send your slides by the end of day Monday. Thank you, Dave and Tero ___ IPsec mailing list IPsec@i

Re: [IPsec] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-05: (with COMMENT)

Comments below. > -Original Message- > From: Paul Wouters [mailto:p...@nohats.ca] > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 1:08 PM > To: Ben Campbell > Cc: The IESG ; draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321...@ietf.org; > ipsec@ietf.org; ipsecme-cha...@ietf.org; Waltermire, David A. (Fed

Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis

Thanks Paul! Dave > -Original Message- > From: IPsec [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kathleen Moriarty > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 3:55 PM > To: p...@nohats.ca > Cc: ipsec@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321...@ietf.org; Tero Kivinen > > Subject: Re: [IPsec] AD review

Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-02.txt

Thank you Paul for making these edits and to the authors for their work on the draft. I will be submitting this version to the IESG once the shepherd write up is done. Thanks, Dave > -Original Message- > From: IPsec [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wouters > Sent: Mond

Re: [IPsec] Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-01

Not a problem. Thanks for the feedback! Dave From: Timothy Carlin [mailto:tjcar...@iol.unh.edu] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 4:05 PM To: Waltermire, David A. (Fed) Cc: Tero Kivinen ; ipsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [IPsec] Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-01 Hi Dave, Yes, I believe they

[IPsec] Call for adoption of draft-pauly-ipsecme-split-dns as an IPSecME WG document

This is the call for adoption of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pauly-ipsecme-split-dns/ as an IPSecME working group (WG) document. By adopting this draft, the WG is agreeing to take this on as an official WG item to continue work on the draft. Please reply to this message with any co

Re: [IPsec] Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-01

>From what I can tell, addressing this feedback is the only thing that needs to >be done before progressing this draft to the IESG for publication. Tim, Did Tero's response address your concerns? Tero, Are you or the other authors planning to post an update based on this feedback? Thanks, Dav

[IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-01

All, This message starts a Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-01. The version to be reviewed is https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-01.txt. Please send your comments, questions, and edit proposals to the WG mail list until January 20th, 2017. I

Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis

Kathleen, Thanks. Happy new year! Regards, Dave From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 9:43 AM To: Waltermire, David A. (Fed) Cc: p...@nohats.ca; ipsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis Hi Dave

Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis

Kathleen, I am just getting back after taking a long holiday. Sorry I was AFK on this one. We want to advance rfc7321bis to go through the remainder of IESG review with 4307bis as a pair. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to get this done before leaving on holiday. I need to do a WGLC on rfc7321bis

Re: [IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-11

s with the draft? Thanks, Dave > -Original Message- > From: Waltermire, David A. (Fed) > Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 10:41 PM > To: IPsecME WG > Subject: WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-11 > > All, > > This message starts a Working Group La

Re: [IPsec] Call for adoption of draft-mglt-ipsecme-rfc7321bis as an IPSecME WG document

Since there were no concerns raised about adopting this draft, this draft has been adopted as an IPSecME working group draft. Authors, please post the next version as draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-00. Thanks, Dave and Tero > -Original Message- > From: Waltermire, David A. (Fed)

Re: [IPsec] Interoperability problem concerning RFC 7427

That is fine. We can give 15 minutes on the agenda for this. Thanks, Dave On: 05 October 2016 03:27, "Valery Smyslov" wrote: Sure. I can prepare the slides (if the WG chairs don't mind). Regards, Valery. > Perhaps we (as in the working group) should schedule some time (15-20 > minutes?) to d

Re: [IPsec] DDoS puzzles

Thank you Kathleen. And thanks to the authors and reviewers that have worked so hard on this draft. Regards, Dave > -Original Message- > From: IPsec [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kathleen Moriarty > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:36 AM > To: ipsec@ietf.org > Subject

Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-09.txt

Kathleen and Valery, Thank you to both of you for your help on this. Regards, Dave > -Original Message- > From: IPsec [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kathleen Moriarty > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 1:04 PM > To: Valery Smyslov > Cc: ipsec@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [IP

Re: [IPsec] Call for adoption of draft-mglt-ipsecme-rfc7321bis as an IPSecME WG document

, it is important to see that support reflected in this adoption call. Please respond indicating your support or concerns regarding WG adoption of this draft. Thanks, Dave > -Original Message- > From: Waltermire, David A. (Fed) > Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 10:33 PM > To

[IPsec] IPsecME Status update 2016-09-02

Charter update The charter is currently under review by the IESG. A new version was posted to address some of the IESG feedback on 2016-09-02. Thanks to Kathleen for her help with the edits. No objection on the list. Should go forward, on the 2016-09-15 IESG telechat. https://datatracke

[IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-11

All, This message starts a Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-11. The version to be reviewed is https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-11.txt. Please send your comments, questions, and edit proposals to the WG mail list until September 19th, 2016.

[IPsec] Call for adoption of draft-mglt-ipsecme-rfc7321bis as an IPSecME WG document

This is the call for adoption of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mglt-ipsecme-rfc7321bis/ as an IPSecME working group (WG) document. By adopting this draft, the WG is agreeing to take this on as an official WG item to continue work on the draft. Please reply to this message with any co

Re: [IPsec] New charter proposal

If needed we could have some virtual meetings between IETF 96, 97, and 98 to work through issues. This could help increase bandwidth to make these milestones. Dave Original Message From: Tommy Pauly Date: Wed, July 20, 2016 6:25 PM +0200 To: Valery Smyslov CC: ipsec@ietf.org

[IPsec] IPsecME Agenda Posted

I just posted a draft agenda for the IPsecME meeting at IETF 96 with timeslots and presenters assigned. Please let me know if you need less time or if another speaker should be used instead. https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/agenda/agenda-96-ipsecme Please send your slides to the chairs by no

Re: [IPsec] IETF 96 IPsecME Agenda

Paul, > > This leaves 25 minutes extra. Are there any additional topics to discuss? > ESP? Yang? Others? Are you or one of the other authors available to discuss these drafts? If so, how much time do you need? > There is draft-pauly-ipsecme-split-dns and draft-mglt-ipsecme-rfc7321bis as > well

[IPsec] IETF 96 IPsecME Agenda

We are scheduled for 2pm - 4pm CEST on Tuesday, July 19th. The chairs need to pull together an agenda for this meeting. Here is an early draft to get us started: 10 minutes: agenda, WG status The following drafts are near done. Are the authors able to give a short status? 5 minutes: status of

Re: [IPsec] Call for adoption on draft-fluhrer-qr-ikev2 as an IPSecME WG document

On: 24 June 2016 11:26, "Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)" wrote: > -Original Message- > From: Paul Wouters [mailto:p...@nohats.ca] > Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 9:43 AM > To: David McGrew (mcgrew) > Cc: Waltermire, David A. (Fed); IPsecME WG; Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer); Pan

[IPsec] Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection

I just completed a review of the DDoS draft. I fixed a number of grammar and wording issues. I would like to issue a pull request, but I don't have access to the site yet. I hope to get that resolved ASAP and then submit the pull request. While I was reviewing the draft I noticed a couple of sm

Re: [IPsec] Call for adoption on draft-fluhrer-qr-ikev2 as an IPSecME WG document

table starting point instead? Regards, Dave > -Original Message- > From: Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) [mailto:sfluh...@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 11:26 AM > To: p...@nohats.ca; David McGrew > Cc: Waltermire, David A. (Fed) ; IPsecME WG > ; Panos Kampanakis (p

Re: [IPsec] Call for adoption on draft-fluhrer-qr-ikev2 as an IPSecME WG document

Comments below. > > In contrast, QR-IKEv2 can be used to add postquantum security between > any two points on the globe, without requiring dedicated fiber, and without > requiring physical layer security assumptions. It has *fewer* security > assumptions than draft-nagayama-ipsecme-ipsec-with-qk

[IPsec] Call for adoption on draft-fluhrer-qr-ikev2 as an IPSecME WG document

At IETF 95 the chairs took an action to issue a call for adoption on draft-fluhrer-qr-ikev2-01 based on WG interest in the concept described by the draft. This call is long overdue. This is the official call for adoption of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fluhrer-qr-ikev2/ as an IPSecME

Re: [IPsec] Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-06

Paul and Valery, We are extremely close on wrapping up this draft. This thread appears to be all that remains before sending the draft to the IESG. Can you guys wrap up the final minor wording changes this week? Valery, once agreement is reached on the text changes, can you post an updated dra

Re: [IPsec] Call for adoption on draft-pauly-ipsecme-tcp-encaps as an IPSecME WG document

any volunteers to review and provide feedback on the draft in the next week or so? This will give the editors some time to post an update prior to the July 8, 2016 draft cut-off. Thanks, Dave > -Original Message- > From: Waltermire, David A. (Fed) > Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016

[IPsec] Call for adoption on draft-pauly-ipsecme-tcp-encaps as an IPSecME WG document

This is the official call for adoption of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pauly-ipsecme-tcp-encaps/ as an IPSecME working group (WG) document. By adopting this draft the WG is agreeing to take this on as an official WG item to continue work on the draft. Please reply with any comments s

Re: [IPsec] Status of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection

From what I am reading, there isn't an interest in splitting puzzles out as experimental. If you feel strongly that puzzles should be split out into a separate experimental draft, please speak up. If we don't hear anything by Monday, June 6, we will begin making preparations to send the draft as

Re: [IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-04

the day UTC on Friday. Thanks, Dave > -Original Message- > From: Waltermire, David A. (Fed) > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 10:34 AM > To: IPsecME WG > Subject: WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-04 > > All: > > With the draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-prot

Re: [IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-04

le.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 8:38 PM > To: Valery Smyslov > Cc: Yoav Nir ; ipsec@ietf.org; Paul Wouters > ; Waltermire, David A. (Fed) > Subject: Re: [IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-04 > > Hi Valery, > > Responses inline. > > Thanks!

[IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-04

All: With the draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-04 freshly minted, I believe the draft is shaping up nicely, but needs additional review. To that end, this message starts a Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-04. The version to be reviewed is https://tools.i

Re: [IPsec] Textual changes to the DDoS draft

AM To: Valery Smyslov Cc: Waltermire, David A. (Fed) ; Yaron Sheffer ; ipsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [IPsec] Textual changes to the DDoS draft I think SHOULD is strong enough. On 1 Mar 2016, at 8:07 AM, Valery Smyslov mailto:sva...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Yaron, I also think that it's mor