From nobody Mon Mar 2 05:25:26 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietf.org Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ABA23A0B77; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 05:25:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: ipsec@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.119.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ipsec@ietf.org Message-ID: <158315552003.27458.11318404034353445002@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 05:25:20 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-01.txt X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 13:25:20 -0000 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 : IP Traffic Flow Security Author : Christian Hopps Filename : draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-01.txt Pages : 25 Date : 2020-03-02 Abstract: This document describes a mechanism to enhance IPsec traffic flow security by adding traffic flow confidentiality to encrypted IP encapsulated traffic. Traffic flow confidentiality is provided by obscuring the size and frequency of IP traffic using a fixed-sized, constant-send-rate IPsec tunnel. The solution allows for congestion control as well. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Mar 2 05:35:56 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E036D3A0BCD for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 05:35:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YC7K6xDzQ9w7 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 05:35:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B64EC3A0BCC for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 05:35:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from stubbs.int.chopps.org (047-050-069-038.biz.spectrum.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 502CA60D6E; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:35:53 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\)) From: Christian Hopps In-Reply-To: <158315552003.27458.11318404034353445002@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 08:35:52 -0500 Cc: Christian Hopps Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <158315552003.27458.11318404034353445002@ietfa.amsl.com> To: IPsecME WG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-01.txt X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 13:35:55 -0000 Hi ipsecme, This update modifies the IKEv2 mechanism to use notifications instead of = transforms as requested during the previous IETF. It also modifies the = IPTFS payload header to use an iniital octet to identify the rest of the = payload.=20 I believe other any changes need more WG discussion, and so I'll start = new email threads for those topics. Thanks, Chris. > On Mar 2, 2020, at 8:25 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > Title : IP Traffic Flow Security > Author : Christian Hopps > Filename : draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-01.txt > Pages : 25 > Date : 2020-03-02 >=20 > Abstract: > This document describes a mechanism to enhance IPsec traffic flow > security by adding traffic flow confidentiality to encrypted IP > encapsulated traffic. Traffic flow confidentiality is provided by > obscuring the size and frequency of IP traffic using a fixed-sized, > constant-send-rate IPsec tunnel. The solution allows for congestion > control as well. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs/ >=20 > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-01 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-01 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-01 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec >=20 From nobody Mon Mar 2 06:39:02 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1727E3A07C3 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 06:39:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cOCIvlzd2Y3v for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 06:38:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A9773A07C7 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 06:38:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from stubbs.int.chopps.org (047-050-069-038.biz.spectrum.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 933FC60D6E; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 14:38:58 +0000 (UTC) From: Christian Hopps Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\)) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 09:38:57 -0500 Cc: Christian Hopps To: IPsecME WG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4) Archived-At: Subject: [IPsec] IPTFS_PROTOCOL IP protocol number. X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 14:39:00 -0000 During the last IETF (106) a discussion ensued on the allocation of the = IP protocol number for IPTFS payloads. I've looked at the options = presented: 1) Use WESP (wrapped ESP) 2) Use protocol number zero, and depend on configuration. 3) Just allocate a number this is a valid use. I think we should continue with the allocation of the IP number. Here = are the reasons: 1) If one has valid reasons, it is not wrong, or that hard to get an = IP number. 2) The IPTFS payload format may be used outside of ESP - It offers real bandwidth benefits for tunneling IP packets. - It offers a solution to tunneled IP MTU issues. 3) It is the design of IPsec/ESP to use IP numbers to identify ESP = payloads, and that is how we are using it. 4) Using WESP drawbacks: 4a) Using WESP would reduce available bandwidth perhaps just as a = way to avoid IETF process. 4b) WESP adoption? Hinted during meeting that maybe not that = deployed which complicates adoption of IPTFS. 4c) There's still an ESP next-header field, so this just reduces to = the same thing as "configured" w/ zero protocol, I think. 5) Unlike the WESP protocol number, we *can* re-use the new protocol = number. 5a) The header starts with a sub-type value, and we create a = registry for the sub-types. 6) Using zero and configuration, this does not allow (2), and = represents losing real functionality/value, this should be a fall-back = position, and not the one to start with. So, my suggestion is we continue with the protocol number. We could = request an early allocation so that we can work on acceptance/education = prior to WGLC/IESG submission. And, however unlikely, if we find we = cant allocate a protocol number, we can fall-back to using = zero+ike/config without a lot of additional work. Thanks, Chris. From nobody Mon Mar 2 08:07:26 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BE523A09DA for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 08:07:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bchb_V5XTsXz for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 08:07:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C7363A09D7 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 08:07:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229523897C; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 11:06:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F08368B; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 11:07:21 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Christian Hopps cc: IPsecME WG In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Subject: Re: [IPsec] IPTFS_PROTOCOL IP protocol number. X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 16:07:25 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Christian Hopps wrote: > During the last IETF (106) a discussion ensued on the allocation of the IP protocol number for IPTFS payloads. I've looked at the options presented: > 1) Use WESP (wrapped ESP) > 2) Use protocol number zero, and depend on configuration. > 3) Just allocate a number this is a valid use. > I think we should continue with the allocation of the IP number. Here are the reasons: I concur. ... > So, my suggestion is we continue with the protocol number. We could > request an early allocation so that we can work on acceptance/education > prior to WGLC/IESG submission. And, however unlikely, if we find we > cant allocate a protocol number, we can fall-back to using > zero+ike/config without a lot of additional work. And I agree with having the WG ask for early allocation. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAl5dLzkACgkQgItw+93Q 3WWj/Af/eRcZhKVNvYDCRfV/7KhnKyNemi8KuMI9pfjC7jsOPbRr1aLDT21tCmVo cgYn67ftDO5rye+I3GoJM4EVYxomoZSB0jBl1xprJoxotQXkEsFIibhHggl8IDdF QaBJdCP3ovAn3get01SY5RbyASkL10NP2MuPF8dfJR8q16NqD/Kh/6WhPSotvk3w aFrmyjiYe3HNBs/lqxeZox3ySmsLXC0VTulqmvv/Xf/NCjrQbU5CyG1QGJ+woJHs bYdXslj73CoU1/xkX5YphKHzsJ1FWOpxr9jWVDPCwNz1+rUdptelmMzoCE8o7I31 zKxSQwgsOgqzqPbovkd+dZTTt6ElKA== =U2Ox -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Thu Mar 5 22:26:45 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7564E3A07D5 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 22:26:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WG2Mc8_kSbHN for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 22:26:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf1-x135.google.com (mail-lf1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB8D33A07D0 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 22:26:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x135.google.com with SMTP id v6so918817lfo.13 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 22:26:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:thread-index:content-language; bh=9k7FgBKgDXUHo9h6om9lmJL60uxYN3ramh0XDtXbgzg=; b=A4hMiyQKe4N5mk7p0Yf+F+qLKfr/pZl1b4nkUIqeMqxn14WbDA274TXJG/dxBxnWVp JYaV2i6ng1VLjzY/KU39bAVitx/c6zQ/wxjqxmkksEFOQ8sNXNmnNEM6jWV9XcimvOMm Ps3/GVMlAU4qUcnlIkfjq6EQJhg0BVpGvN8D+Sr52qE1+GrXKkfDglEXD/HPkOMOoMud khrurcERCvWKhoT7hpYkaGTxtKwi4ctkWgQqWdjVzwWwiYbGqRmYOcd2ibwSn658nygf 8DmIdWOmdUv792SHLCanEzH3Qm5ThaPMHFHFOPBVZDOaYRB3O3mNZm8tlRUUqSctMJXr 59LQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=9k7FgBKgDXUHo9h6om9lmJL60uxYN3ramh0XDtXbgzg=; b=ommuwCZCP4H5mgorkZ6Lwu0DQC/1K1vbHV4fZk8rE1JakiV+y57mz0wMvNgmI5TUSW 7ZxgN1r5CDYdEdTOh3atbB0fh63zuJqGaGzUFbQUky2w3U9ZdPWqqpumaLknuXjSWhPx 7ASoXkDmjqaD4P4FBViXYRk4qAFIR8AEuXoEMIYFwd0I70kgTlY9FEGUnh4ekIIBB4Zg K4AtlYtQI0dt57OILUX0a3KEwqzBthKiZN6HftaZwb1MZtHh0BSeuHEkRhJA55OqCiQR dDhZ1sJVZg8cBSHkmFG/oLSbndGKRBfKtREhnqd8pkOo9tQ7CudLSvNKiPhwyH7zdcGR FLmQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ39XBinAkP5ZskTXZ9t7Bf262ahna9KiJBAMFiQmfR/4eQLHS7W XwrEZCMjYO1WKoYpRNR4HF2dyaOD X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtskPq3hQiFzD9p75uIDBfh8J7KWpFzNZfI9T9q4pk/gU0XLEjEZ33aSv+oAt4eHQztpHW5Tw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3044:: with SMTP id b4mr952791lfb.10.1583475999382; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 22:26:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from buildpc ([82.138.51.4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x62sm3318989lff.58.2020.03.05.22.26.38 for (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2020 22:26:38 -0800 (PST) From: "Valery Smyslov" To: "IPsecME WG" References: <158347540997.14647.9817096813357563554@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <158347540997.14647.9817096813357563554@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:26:41 +0300 Message-ID: <15b501d5f380$33bbd950$9b338bf0$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQH7TNc8Xpc6/HmorLlBL+x7V/MPdKfwZIjg Content-Language: ru Archived-At: Subject: [IPsec] FW: New Version Notification for draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-auth-announce-00.txt X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2020 06:26:44 -0000 Hi, I've published a new draft that allows peers to announce their supported authentication methods during IKE SA establishment. This addresses a potential problem of selecting a wrong authentication method (unsupported by the peer) when multiple of them can be used. This problem is in the ipsecme charter and I believe the draft can be used as a starting point for solving this problem. Reviews and comments are very welcome. Regards, Valery. -----Original Message----- From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2020 9:17 AM To: Valery Smyslov Subject: New Version Notification for draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-auth-announce-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-auth-announce-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Valery Smyslov and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-auth-announce Revision: 00 Title: Announcing Supported Authenticating Methods in IKEv2 Document date: 2020-03-06 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 9 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-auth-announce-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-auth-announce/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-auth-announce-00 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-auth-announce Abstract: This specification defines a mechanism that allows the Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) implementations to indicate the list of supported authenticated methods to their peers while establishing IKEv2 Security Association (SA). This mechanism improves interoperability when IKEv2 partners are configured with multiple different credentials to authenticate each other. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat From nobody Wed Mar 11 15:55:35 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E8A53A09DD; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:55:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2cWopUGL9cnG; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:55:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3CFB3A0965; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:55:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 543D2F40743; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:55:12 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:ams_util_lib.php From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref@iana.org, ipsec@ietf.org Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20200311225512.543D2F40743@rfc-editor.org> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [IPsec] =?utf-8?q?RFC_8750_on_Implicit_Initialization_Vector_=28?= =?utf-8?q?IV=29_for_Counter-Based_Ciphers_in_Encapsulating_Security_Paylo?= =?utf-8?q?ad_=28ESP=29?= X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 22:55:26 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 8750 Title: Implicit Initialization Vector (IV) for Counter-Based Ciphers in Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Author: D. Migault, T. Guggemos, Y. Nir Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: March 2020 Mailbox: daniel.migault@ericsson.com, guggemos@nm.ifi.lmu.de, ynir.ietf@gmail.com Pages: 8 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-11.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8750 DOI: 10.17487/RFC8750 Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) sends an initialization vector (IV) in each packet. The size of the IV depends on the applied transform and is usually 8 or 16 octets for the transforms defined at the time this document was written. When used with IPsec, some algorithms, such as AES-GCM, AES-CCM, and ChaCha20-Poly1305, take the IV to generate a nonce that is used as an input parameter for encrypting and decrypting. This IV must be unique but can be predictable. As a result, the value provided in the ESP Sequence Number (SN) can be used instead to generate the nonce. This avoids sending the IV itself and saves 8 octets per packet in the case of AES-GCM, AES-CCM, and ChaCha20-Poly1305. This document describes how to do this. This document is a product of the IP Security Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From nobody Fri Mar 20 14:03:58 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 939B13A0E3C for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:03:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KlMLvazAf8G7 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm1-x336.google.com (mail-wm1-x336.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::336]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A53A73A0E31 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x336.google.com with SMTP id p17so1025286wmc.2 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:03:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=G0MgRF+KUWmMwkFrbQ+IDoKVIGb+pKMGHUsrMVgrA6Q=; b=RJs2HNutmBRo7coJ4atpIWMR8V/LmhkJQmIan1kjUJAyYb1hPinGjK1EwKAlWqUrr4 cg9jkcy/YVndXG5gZVYhpMzLK06XUSQI9vGS9N/He1eBtRFi1m+MJU+gOnSUAX3IDKj8 RgE2Y93yW+8xSnV3BSHAdsid49+ORLngKnUDlo+KwJ7zsQSKtL60dW3teV4hzk19SuKg QNYDjgmFTTnAdVXRtdLnmWUnEMxtFLp7/hxnZWB0fcU6cFya20jOYJ4GNfGO+vi05OM2 pw6ZWrbzNl7lamrYpTe0A87pOnrk0NJ2v9sDSors7HEUB/r9kttTljP6v5s/48uz+dr7 9zGA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=G0MgRF+KUWmMwkFrbQ+IDoKVIGb+pKMGHUsrMVgrA6Q=; b=sX3TjbIy42YoQqB3htLTW2ywBSQBwNjtkPT4Xc12GsjI0ZTUrrC4/ib1hSv7el6nXU 6/T/+sH2zgMK8Z7C7KMSQbPfBod1EWCLA/01yNFeVeHIgIeVLRYQrS1B3mow1VFj5OBk rl83VNNUU3isLxEJFTPEmw77UXCpidQpHY2/WEOn1Ik6uSFH5zURKGaqZzpqTNjeN5rj 9LcPoHhNzbbKbI8EnSWiqZWdpQzM8Q2/Jmbs0wsfz8zc/lF4DtGYSA56olA0Dx1B2irq XwbZqBYogJjIaVh/ET3O05TK/aRPPHWM99JUdxqC/qpocJsXVzBzBkRHKVUSuWyIsO/e aPiQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3bYq10lExXyienTXy6dWoKCwnJ4hD42FYE/26S/+aPjw8QECbb nbZXHmgBBEQKFNf5yg2tt44OU4lI X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vt9ME7vKphb8mWyr3aImUmXfij9fJelX9qQlWiEuuE0YVBfEMSaF0P8D4OYsBDYJcm2Sm83CQ== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:6146:: with SMTP id v67mr13003306wmb.78.1584738224552; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:03:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.12] ([46.120.57.147]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b5sm10146743wrj.1.2020.03.20.14.03.40 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:03:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Yoav Nir Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C24F97B7-6B93-4765-838A-1C70EC53C3EC" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\)) Message-Id: <6A468D3F-3BBF-407F-8D34-86AC638151EA@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 23:03:38 +0200 To: "ipsec@ietf.org WG" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5) Archived-At: Subject: [IPsec] Holding a virtual interim meeting. Or not X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:03:54 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C24F97B7-6B93-4765-838A-1C70EC53C3EC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi all. As you know, the in-person IETF meeting in Vancouver has been cancelled. = There is a reduced schedule for virtual meetings [1], but it does not = include IPsecME. The IESG chair has published a recommended schedule = [2] for the working groups to hold virtual meetings in April instead of = the physical session in Vancouver. For IPsecME, the chosen date is = Wednesday, April 8th, but we are free to choose to meet at that date at = whatever time is convenient, or we may choose a different date in May, = or we may skip the meeting altogether if we don=E2=80=99t believe there = is added value in holding a virtual meeting over just using email. Please note that virtual meetings are pretty poor for status and = progress reports. They are functional for specific discussion and for = making decisions. So, if you are interested in holding a meeting, please reply to this = with three pieces of information: Work item you would like to discuss online, for example: the traffic = flow security draft (possible to have more than 1) A thing you think requires discussion online that doesn=E2=80=99t seem = to get settled in email (example: which protocol number to use) Preferred time of day for the interim meeting (please state that in UTC = to avoid confusion) Thanks, Tero & Yoav [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/107/agenda = [2] = https://trac.ietf.org/trac/wgchairs/raw-attachment/wiki/WikiStart/April202= 0-RecommendedSchedule.pdf = --Apple-Mail=_C24F97B7-6B93-4765-838A-1C70EC53C3EC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 
Hi all.

As you know, the in-person IETF meeting in Vancouver has been cancelled. =
There is a reduced schedule for virtual meetings [1], but it does not =
include IPsecME.  The IESG chair has published a recommended schedule =
[2] for the working groups to hold virtual meetings in April instead of =
the physical session in Vancouver.  For IPsecME, the chosen date is =
Wednesday, April 8th, but we are free to choose to meet at that date at =
whatever time is convenient, or we may choose a different date in May, =
or we may skip the meeting altogether if we don=E2=80=99t believe there =
is added value in holding a virtual meeting over just using email.

Please note that virtual meetings are pretty poor for status and =
progress reports. They are functional for specific discussion and for =
making decisions.

So, if you are interested in holding a meeting, please reply to this =
with three pieces of information:
  • Work item you would like to discuss =
online, for example: the traffic flow security draft  (possible to have =
more than 1)
  • A thing you think requires discussion =
online that doesn=E2=80=99t seem to get settled in email (example: which =
protocol number to use)
  • Preferred time of day for the =
interim meeting (please state that in UTC to avoid =
confusion)
Thanks,

Tero & Yoav

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/107/agenda
[2] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/wgchairs/raw-attachment/wiki/WikiSta=
rt/April2020-RecommendedSchedule.pdf

    = --Apple-Mail=_C24F97B7-6B93-4765-838A-1C70EC53C3EC-- From nobody Fri Mar 20 18:03:50 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A74E3A0FC7 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 18:03:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fCd-Oe4NdXGB for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 18:03:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20DC83A100A for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 18:03:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stubbs.int.chopps.org (047-050-069-038.biz.spectrum.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 736D16085F; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:03:41 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\)) From: Christian Hopps In-Reply-To: <6A468D3F-3BBF-407F-8D34-86AC638151EA@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:03:40 -0400 Cc: Christian Hopps , "ipsec@ietf.org WG" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <6A468D3F-3BBF-407F-8D34-86AC638151EA@gmail.com> To: Yoav Nir X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [IPsec] Holding a virtual interim meeting. Or not X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:03:47 -0000 I think it would be useful to have a virtual interim to go over the = changes made and yet to be made in the IPTFS work. We have an open issue = on transport mode support that might benefit from a live discussion. Thanks, Chris. > On Mar 20, 2020, at 5:03 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: >=20 > Hi all. >=20 > As you know, the in-person IETF meeting in Vancouver has been = cancelled. There is a reduced schedule for virtual meetings [1], but it = does not include IPsecME. The IESG chair has published a recommended = schedule [2] for the working groups to hold virtual meetings in April = instead of the physical session in Vancouver. For IPsecME, the chosen = date is Wednesday, April 8th, but we are free to choose to meet at that = date at whatever time is convenient, or we may choose a different date = in May, or we may skip the meeting altogether if we don=E2=80=99t = believe there is added value in holding a virtual meeting over just = using email. >=20 >=20 > Please note that virtual meetings are pretty poor for status and = progress reports. They are functional for specific discussion and for = making decisions. >=20 > So, if you are interested in holding a meeting, please reply to this = with three pieces of information: >=20 > =E2=80=A2 Work item you would like to discuss online, for = example: the traffic flow security draft (possible to have more than 1) > =E2=80=A2 A thing you think requires discussion online that = doesn=E2=80=99t seem to get settled in email (example: which protocol = number to use) > =E2=80=A2 Preferred time of day for the interim meeting (please = state that in UTC to avoid confusion) > Thanks, >=20 > Tero & Yoav >=20 > [1]=20 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/107/agenda >=20 > [2]=20 > = https://trac.ietf.org/trac/wgchairs/raw-attachment/wiki/WikiStart/April202= 0-RecommendedSchedule.pdf >=20 > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec From nobody Fri Mar 20 18:36:48 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B0AD3A1061 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 18:36:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NGeY9HJuUpx1 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 18:36:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12D523A105F for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 18:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48kjsw1DhyzJhr; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 02:36:36 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1584754596; bh=KkN3pT/nTd4v+n/arwWKbpy1A7io0wXhkLRvODTyxzA=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=M0XJZ4x2vI5mouwkzLcgov6kHB/jeINZ0n6/KRvTRNo1A/4S3kLqJQjLs1nx+XzSn 5PjI73Cff2sksd6rFU9gnnB03LS06Ke9J55OlftqnVNN0ka3xhDT/c/vZCaN4x+Y9W vDfVZ5GQCNfd3jomllRpEtOyet8UULbQjkjLwhds= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4xoL-ZjDxn7J; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 02:36:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 02:36:35 +0100 (CET) Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 56BBD6029BA6; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:36:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560C8669C5; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:36:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:36:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Wouters To: Yoav Nir cc: "ipsec@ietf.org WG" In-Reply-To: <6A468D3F-3BBF-407F-8D34-86AC638151EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <6A468D3F-3BBF-407F-8D34-86AC638151EA@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [IPsec] Holding a virtual interim meeting. Or not X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:36:46 -0000 On Fri, 20 Mar 2020, Yoav Nir wrote: > So, if you are interested in holding a meeting, please reply to this with three pieces of information: I don't think a virtual meeting is needed. Paul From nobody Sun Mar 22 04:37:33 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F0503A07F4 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 04:37:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7YNIEEX_Hpd2 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 04:37:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x22d.google.com (mail-lj1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73B483A07EF for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 04:37:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id g27so2539824ljn.10 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 04:37:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :thread-index:content-language; bh=WYKsd/DQifOkTDCl9Z+S3b470ulblbT4dASy0HO9SHo=; b=VPnZdJwNKPqTVgglClI6NPWNun+XCnIirH+LXb5b5nvQYlL/qMCQ6N5Ge8YmFUDzAr mjv3S2eSwdAlVERiJI0Tn40y/O5hesQXmoI7VXDps3PeLQrP4WLjGPrf+5JPwUfM47zA 1Pvoi2+s5fgsX+D93Ez/unLP3A14klxy01Z6+VYUvCCIK/fmZQuEv1C0CHH0Z8Dx0K8b +YQtEMAzajIV+3gcsmwE0NXtACh05PjV6ujvAwJMsVIwvxQhbDC/DCiTgxX0x+sUfe5M KjzqPDdre4v0UoZ3p4ikxx+NpuddQNG0IPxpy5/6z/oH9yvpw/TDTKCos77Tgzx2HdxI w66Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=WYKsd/DQifOkTDCl9Z+S3b470ulblbT4dASy0HO9SHo=; b=YQmQEFYr9i9Se9M/0asGBjZNaVy5m5lcl9FeH4pBl7ari6Sbix/x7SvigGxcXcLEoq K/O5LWyVHFtDj1TwIR3MqG2Icw08hJfowTtenrDg9ZwxRuwzD6R5kSZoX1ozACULt+8W i7iaeqhLhgw4Z7awYmlhCoKKUi6iblbZseAHZdtHytPICUq0pdyNWySuhQgDwAHJwy4n cnuFUfSZ1tMWwDkp3aBQjMeM18i8WlIqGvDbZL9D+eLI4q12q9lIGTXCWnAv1oyiJora rrsKydOa1WMNB7cgPADl3DJ2Yz8kJJlCXSJPbzz6HDw68LuMrLSufKi1GZhr5H5u2d05 svoA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3hXDjD3Ihns4Dh/SGQaOYtcc79yTZBhy3IBSOF9AUm0ZZVFCaL zFe7pfAM49y28i0az2Mh+E1OzL+Z X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtkoPB4GvdelDFqnvrugllWYnnmTIS2Sd2seAYC+HPY/iTxhPiSvdVkYRfKBcQkFWITJM0zyw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:1044:: with SMTP id x4mr10035814ljm.230.1584877046319; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 04:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chichi (95-27-147-103.broadband.corbina.ru. [95.27.147.103]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w7sm6680378lfn.19.2020.03.22.04.37.25 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 22 Mar 2020 04:37:25 -0700 (PDT) From: "Valery Smyslov" To: "'Yoav Nir'" , References: <6A468D3F-3BBF-407F-8D34-86AC638151EA@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6A468D3F-3BBF-407F-8D34-86AC638151EA@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 14:37:17 +0300 Message-ID: <000f01d6003e$3e0ab5f0$ba2021d0$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01D60057.635A8600" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQEfgkyXhjvFKNrTNuhOJyYbToU3R6nBbw6Q Content-Language: ru Archived-At: Subject: Re: [IPsec] Holding a virtual interim meeting. Or not X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 11:37:31 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01D60057.635A8600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Yoav, =20 I wanted to present draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-auth-announce. =20 In general I prefer to have technical discussions in a mailing list = rather than in meetings and I think meetings are best for presenting new drafts (otherwise people = rarely read them). For me virtual meetings are worse than in-person, because of additional = difficulties in understanding what people are saying due to imperfect audio quality. However, given that we probably won't have in-person IETF108 (and = probably even 109), I believe that having virtual meeting makes _some_ sense. =20 For me the preferred starting time of the meeting is from 16:00-20:00 = UTC (given it's 1-1.5 hours in length). =20 Regards, Valery. =20 =20 From: IPsec [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yoav Nir Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2020 12:04 AM To: ipsec@ietf.org WG Subject: [IPsec] Holding a virtual interim meeting. Or not =20 Hi all. =20 As you know, the in-person IETF meeting in Vancouver has been cancelled. = There is a reduced schedule for virtual meetings [1], but it does not = include IPsecME. The IESG chair has published a recommended schedule = [2] for the working groups to hold virtual meetings in April instead of = the physical session in Vancouver. For IPsecME, the chosen date is = Wednesday, April 8th, but we are free to choose to meet at that date at = whatever time is convenient, or we may choose a different date in May, = or we may skip the meeting altogether if we don=E2=80=99t believe there = is added value in holding a virtual meeting over just using email. Please note that virtual meetings are pretty poor for status and = progress reports. They are functional for specific discussion and for = making decisions. =20 So, if you are interested in holding a meeting, please reply to this = with three pieces of information: =C2=B7 Work item you would like to discuss online, for example: = the traffic flow security draft (possible to have more than 1) =C2=B7 A thing you think requires discussion online that = doesn=E2=80=99t seem to get settled in email (example: which protocol = number to use) =C2=B7 Preferred time of day for the interim meeting (please = state that in UTC to avoid confusion) =20 Thanks, =20 Tero & Yoav =20 [1] = https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/107/agenda [2] = = https://trac.ietf.org/trac/wgchairs/raw-attachment/wiki/WikiStart/April20= 20-RecommendedSchedule.pdf =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01D60057.635A8600 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    Hi Yoav,

     

    I wanted to present = draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-auth-announce.

     

    In general I prefer to have technical discussions in a mailing list = rather than in meetings and

    I think meetings are best for presenting new drafts (otherwise people = rarely read them).

    For me virtual meetings are worse than in-person, because of = additional difficulties

    in understanding what people are saying due to imperfect audio = quality.

    However, given that we probably won't have in-person IETF108 (and = probably even 109),

    I believe that having virtual meeting makes _some_ = sense.

     

    For me the preferred starting time of the meeting is from 16:00-20:00 = UTC

    (given it's 1-1.5 hours in length).

     

    Regards,

    Valery.

     

     

    From:= IPsec = [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yoav = Nir
    Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2020 12:04 AM
    To: = ipsec@ietf.org WG
    Subject: [IPsec] Holding a virtual interim = meeting. Or not

     

    Hi =
all.
     <=
/o:p>
    As you =
know, the in-person IETF meeting in Vancouver has been cancelled. There =
is a reduced schedule for virtual meetings [1], but it does not include =
IPsecME.=C2=A0 The IESG chair has published a recommended schedule [2] =
for the working groups to hold virtual meetings in April instead of the =
physical session in Vancouver.=C2=A0 For IPsecME, the chosen date is =
Wednesday, April 8th, but we are free to choose to meet at that date at =
whatever time is convenient, or we may choose a different date in May, =
or we may skip the meeting altogether if we don=E2=80=99t believe there =
is added value in holding a virtual meeting over just using =
email.

    Please note =
that virtual meetings are pretty poor for status and progress reports. =
They are functional for specific discussion and for making =
decisions.
     <=
/o:p>
    So, if you =
are interested in holding a meeting, please reply to this with three =
pieces of information:
    =C2=B7        =
Work item =
you would like to discuss online, for example: the traffic flow security =
draft=C2=A0 (possible to have more than 1)
    =C2=B7        =
A thing you =
think requires discussion online that doesn=E2=80=99t seem to get =
settled in email (example: which protocol number to =
use)
    =C2=B7        =
Preferred =
time of day for the interim meeting (please state that in UTC to avoid =
confusion)
     <=
/o:p>
    Thanks,=

     <=
/o:p>
    Tero & =
Yoav
     <=
/o:p>
    [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org=
/meeting/107/agenda
    [2] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/w=
gchairs/raw-attachment/wiki/WikiStart/April2020-RecommendedSchedule.pdf

     

    ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01D60057.635A8600--