Subject: [IPsec] PROTO write up for draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-08

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 19:15:54 +0300

I believe the draft is ready for AD review now. Below is my shepherd
write-up, for your comments.

Thanks,

            Yaron

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

          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.)

No, there were no 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. 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:

          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 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

             rough?

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.

          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 any concrete
vendor plans to implement this specification.

(end)