An update:  I have one small typo to correct (see my reply to Murray) and a
list of milestones.

I suggest:
Add support for preshared keys to initial IKEv2 SA:
 draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-qr-alt
Add support for reducing size and complexity of IKEv2 exchanges:
 draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-sa-ts-payloads-opt-03
ESP compression Profile:  draft-ietf-ipsecme-diet-esp and
draft-ietf-ipsecme-diet-esp-extensions
Tools for debugging IPsec configurations:

I'm happy to take comments.  These milestones don't have to be perfect,
they just have to exist.  I can include or remove the actual draft titles,
if that seems better.

I'd like to submit this for external review by Monday.

Deb

On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 8:27 AM Deb Cooley <debcool...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Updated, see here for the changes:
>
>
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-ipsecme%2Fwithmilestones-13-00.txt&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-ipsecme%2Fwithmilestones-13-01.txt&difftype=--html
>
> It is on the telechat for 23 Jan for the informal round of review.
>
> Deb
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 6:11 PM Tero Kivinen <kivi...@iki.fi> wrote:
>
>> Paul Wouters writes:
>> >       This work item may also include solutions for transport issues
>> >       because of larger payload and message sizes.
>> >
>> > I believe this work is already complete with the INTERMEDIATE exchange,
>> > so I think this sentence can be removed?
>>
>> No. This also includes things using TCP for IKEv2 for reliability and
>> large messages, and then switching to ESP for actual IPsec. And also a
>> case where we end up having payloads that are over 64k where IKEv2
>> basic payload code would need changes (not sure if we end up having
>> payloads that are larger than 64k, some thing may also be done using
>> other methods than large payloads).
>>
>> >       for example sha3,
>> >
>> > Maybe leave that out, as there is a trend now to not specify SHA3 for
>> > use with classic algorithms?
>>
>> There was request to add that, and I do not see any reason why remove
>> it. If we do not want to specify it later then we simply do not have
>> draft for that.
>>
>> > The charter doesn't mention the g-IKEv2 work and any of the other 4
>> > adopted documents in progress. Is that covered under a "maintenance"
>> > part of the charter? I didn't really see that part mentioned, eg
>> > "work on IKEv2 minor extensions". (although g-IKEv2 is not "minor" I
>> > think)
>>
>> G-ikev2 and rename-esn have already be submitted to the IESG, thus are
>> already out from the WG charter.
>>
>> Diet-esp and Diet-esp-extension should be going out soon after I have
>> time to read them, they were in the last charter and we are finishing
>> them using old charter.
>>
>> QR-alt should be also going out to the IESG after shephard writeup.
>>
>> sa-ts-payloads-opt can be covered by maintenance parts (it was in
>> previous charter).
>>
>> >
>> > > We will need milestones shortly, I'm happy to take suggestions.  And
>> per the usual, comments are welcome.
>> >
>> > Milestones for the adopted drafts would be good :)
>> >
>> > g-IKEv2 is scheduled for IESG already, so a Milestone of March maybe
>> > :)
>>
>> Our milestones used to be for submitting for the IESG, and that is
>> already past.
>>
>> > I think draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-qr-alt-05 is more or less ready as
>> > well.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> > draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-sa-ts-payloads-opt-03  needs some work
>> > but once the PFS parts are split into their own doc, might be mostly
>> > waiting on implementation and interop testing. So maybe aim for July?
>> >
>> > I am far less clear about the diet-ESP work, which seems stalled and
>> > seems to lack implementer support right now?
>>
>> These are waiting for me to start WGLC, and I wanted to read them
>> first before starting that, but as it seems I am not able to do that
>> before the IEEE meeting next week, I will start WGLC now.
>> --
>> kivi...@iki.fi
>>
>
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org

Reply via email to