Dear Daniel, Thank you for sharing this work. I appreciate the thought you've put into it, and it provides us with a good starting point for further development. I have found some points for discussion
1. the Strata In your document, you need 3 strata to compress the complete stack. And anywhere in the document, you define the SCHC Header Instance of each stratum. I understand that for EEC and CTEC strata use a compressed SCHC Header where there is only one Rule and the length is zero, for instance for the IIP strata you must define a SCHC Header to identify the next protocol in the stack. 2. Terminology - You need to read the new architecture version and update your terminology. - SCHC Context has been removed, and there is only SCHC SoR for each instance. In the SoR there is only Rules, there is no context. - You need to add the SCHC Strata - You need to define the SCHC Header Instances - You need to align your terminology section to draft-architecture 3. SCHC SoR initialization You talk about a SA (Security Association) that will generate the corresponding SCHC rules. For me is not clear what you mean. Will the SA use the yang data model together with the SA for this generation? 4. SCHC Profile Until now, a SCHC Profile has been defined for Layer Two fragmentation parameters. I'm not sure you are using the correct term for SCHC profile because you are not doing fragmentation. It will be good to discuss and see what you mean by Profile. 5. Padding I'm not a security specialist, but I see you are doing double padding, one in SCHC compression and the other in the ESP. Is it a security reason to do this way? If not SCHC does not require alignment, so perhaps you can eliminate one padding 6. SoR and Rules There is a confusion between Rule and FID. A Rule is a description of the header fields, all the header fields! the Rule does not have a direction by itself but each FID in the Rule has it. 7. Identification of SoR The architecture draft does not give any way to do this identification, if you need it, you have to provide the way to do it. (Section 4.2) 8. Table 1 This table is very confusing, you are defining parameters, and at the same time, you are inventing TVs. But in your 'possible values' you mixed between CDAs and values. So this Table gives a different approach that is not used in SCHC 9. New MO / CDA and functions There are 3 new MO/CDA, I'm not sure you need all of them. They have not been defined in the RFCs 8724, or 8824, nor the architecture, so you need to present the need for these new MO/CDA to see their feasibility We can discuss but the "lower" CDA must be a "compute*" The "generate" may also be a "compute*" The MSB(start,end) and LSB (strat,end) functions, as I understand you are using them for the range. It is another way to do it, that needs consensus Ana On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 6:01 PM Daniel Migault <mglt.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Please find the WGLC for our compressed ESP based on SCHC. Feel free to > share your reviews/comments. > > Yours, > Daniel > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Tero Kivinen <kivi...@iki.fi> > Date: Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 6:15 PM > Subject: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-diet-esp > To: <ipsec@ietf.org> > > > This will start two week WGLC for the draft-ietf-ipsecme-diet-esp [1]. > This last call will end at 2025-01-23. If you have any comments about > the draft send them to the WG list. > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-diet-esp/ > -- > kivi...@iki.fi > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org > > > -- > Daniel Migault > Ericsson > -- > Schc mailing list -- s...@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to schc-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
