|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > ipsec archives|
I believe the draft is ready for AD review now. Below is my shepherd write-up, for your comments.
Document name: Wrapped ESP for Traffic Visibility, draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-08.txt
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
The document shepherd is Yaron Sheffer, co-chair of the ipsecme WG. I have reviewed it and believe it is ready for publication.
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
The document has had in-depth review within the ipsecme WG. I am not aware of any non-WG reviews. I do not have any concerns about these reviews.
(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?
No concerns, the document lies fully within the ipsecme WG's area of expertise.
(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
I have no such concerns. There have been no IPR disclosures.
(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?
There is wide WG consensus.
(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)
No, there were no such conflicts.
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
Yes, I have personally verified that. No formal review criteria are applicable.
(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
No issues identified.
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
The document defines a new IP Protocol Number. In addition, it defines a new IKEv2 notification, and one new IANA registry. There are no issues with any of them. I expect the Responsible AD to request the existing IKE/IPsec IANA expert to extend his services to the current draft.
(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?
There are no such sections.
(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
This document describes the Wrapped Encapsulating Security Payload (WESP) protocol, which is based on the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) protocol and is designed to allow intermediate devices to ascertain if ESP with null encryption is being employed and if so, inspect the IPsec packets for network monitoring and access control functions. The mechanism described in this document can be used to easily disambiguate ESP-NULL from encrypted ESP packets, without compromising on the security provided by ESP.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
Early on there was prolonged WG discussion about the relative merits of the Wrapped ESP solution for identifying ESP-null traffic, compared to heuristic methods for traffic inspection. Eventually the WG reached consensus on the usefulness of having both solutions published, with the heuristics solution targeted for the interim period until WESP is widely deployed. This consensus is documented in both protocol documents.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
We are not aware of any implementations. Neither do we know of any concrete vendor plans to implement this specification.