Subject: [IPsec] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-redirect-10.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 15:00:01 -0700 (PDT)

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 Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Redirect Mechanism for IKEv2
	Author(s)       : V. Devarapalli, K. Weniger
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-redirect-10.txt
	Pages           : 14
	Date            : 2009-05-19

IKEv2 is a protocol for setting up VPN tunnels from a remote location
to a gateway so that the VPN client can access services in the
network behind the gateway.  Currently there is no standard mechanism
specified that allows an overloaded VPN gateway or a VPN gateway that
is being shut down for maintenance to redirect the VPN client to
attach to another gateway.  This document proposes a redirect
mechanism for IKEv2.  The proposed mechanism can also be used in
Mobile IPv6 to enable the home agent to redirect the mobile node to
another home agent.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-redirect-10.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 08:01:19 +0300

Hi everyone,

I believe the document is ready for AD review. Below is the PROTO write up,
comments are welcome.

Thanks,
	Yaron

Document name: Redirect Mechanism for IKEv2,
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-redirect-10

    (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 such concerns.

    (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
          this issue.

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.)

There have not been any such conflicts.

    (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits? (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          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.

    (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 few new code points in existing registries, 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:

          Technical Summary
             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
             or introduction.

This document defines a redirect mechanism for IKEv2.  The main use case is
scalability of large deployments of remote access VPN gateways. The proposed
mechanism can also be used in Mobile IPv6, where signaling is protected by
IKE/IPsec, to support the home agent in redirecting the mobile node to
another home agent.

          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
             rough?

The document represents the consensus opinion of the ipsecme WG.

          Document Quality
             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 relevant
vendor plans.

(end)