[IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-labeled-ipsec-04.txt

2020-10-30 Thread internet-drafts
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Security Maintenance and Extensions WG of the IETF. Title : Labeled IPsec Traffic Selector support for IKEv2 Authors : Paul Wouters

Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-labeled-ipsec-04.txt

2020-10-30 Thread Haitham Cruickshank
Thanks Rahul, Have a nice weekend. Haitham --- Dr. Haitham S. Cruickshank Reader Institute for Communication Systems (ICS) Faculty of Engineering and Physical Science University of Surrey Guildford GU2 7XH, UK Tel: +44 1483 686007 (indirect 689844) Fax: +44 1483 686011 e-mail: h.cruicksh...@su

Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-labeled-ipsec-04.txt

2020-10-30 Thread Paul Wouters
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: Subject: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-labeled-ipsec-04.txt A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipsecme-labeled-ipsec-04 This version is a minor update. It fixes some typ

Re: [IPsec] Comments on draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-00

2020-10-30 Thread Tero Kivinen
Daniel Migault writes: > The security consideration has been updated as follows: > > """ >   The security of a communication provided by ESP is closely related to >    the security associated to the management of that key.  This usually >    include mechanisms to prevent a nonce to repeat for exam

Re: [IPsec] [Lwip] Review of draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-00

2020-10-30 Thread Tero Kivinen
Daniel Migault writes: >    value SN needs to be considered instead.  Note that the limit of >    messages being sent is primary determined by the security associated >    to the key rather than the SN.  The security of the key used to >    encrypt decreases with the each message being sent and a n

Re: [IPsec] [Last-Call] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-11.txt

2020-10-30 Thread Roman Danyliw
Hi Tom! > -Original Message- > From: tom petch > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 7:14 AM > To: Roman Danyliw ; Rafa Marin-Lopez > Cc: i2...@ietf.org; Fernando Pereniguez-Garcia > ; Gabriel Lopez ; > ynir.i...@gmail.com; last-c...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Last-Call] New Version Notificatio

Re: [IPsec] [Last-Call] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-11.txt

2020-10-30 Thread Tero Kivinen
Roman Danyliw writes: > > >> It seems to me that the IANA entries for IKEv2 are incomplete. > > >> RFC8247 does a fine job of specifying algorithms and adding > > >> information such as status (MUST/SHOULD+), IoT, AEAD and so on, > > >> information which is not present on IANA. The policy for, e.g

Re: [IPsec] [Last-Call] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-11.txt

2020-10-30 Thread Roman Danyliw
Hi Tero! > -Original Message- > From: IPsec On Behalf Of Tero Kivinen > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 6:42 PM > To: Roman Danyliw > Cc: Fernando Pereniguez-Garcia ; > i2...@ietf.org; Gabriel Lopez ; ynir.i...@gmail.com; > ipsec@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; Rafa Marin-Lopez ; tom petch