Subject: [IPsec] Which option to pick on draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-02.txt

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 21:01:59 +0200

My draft draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-02.txt defines new way to
send any type of raw public keys inside IKEv2. RFC5996 only allows
sending RSA raw public keys. This means after this we would have two
ways to do send RSA raw public keys, old RFC5996 and new format define
din my draft. 

In yesterdays IPsecME meeting I asked following question about what to
do with the Raw RSA Public Key Type:

1) Make this new format completely optional

	Leave old RFC 5996 format as is, both this new format and the
	old format can be used. In that case this document can be
	informational, and it does not need to updated RFC5996.

2) Make this new format recommended, but keep old format

	Leave old RFC 5996 format as is, but make this new format as
	preferred format, i.e. add text which says SHOULD use this new
	format if it is supported, and SHOULD NOT for old format. Old
	format can be used for backward compatibility. In this case
	this document should be standard track, and update RFC5996.

3) Obsolete old format

	Make old RFC 5996 format as MUST NOT, and officially obsolete
	it. This means all implementations should switch to new format
	as soon as possible. This document must be standard track, and
	update RFC5996.

In the discussion we did not found out that there would have been wide
use for the old RFC 5996 defined RSA raw public key, so feeling was
that it would be possible to obsolete the old format. It was
considered a bad idea to keep two ways of doing same thing.

So now I want to know if anybody have anything against if we do just
that, i.e. pick the 3rd option and obsolete the old RSA raw public key
format.

The another question is whether this document needs to be WG document
or not. As it seems to be that we are updating the RFC5996 and
obsoleting stuff from it, there seemed to be some people who felt that
this should be WG document. Send your comments about this too. 

Please send your comments here in the list during the next two weeks
(I will be traveling during the next two weeks, and plan to make
necessary changes (if any) to the draft after I get back to home).
-- 
[email-masked]

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:46:27 -0500

Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]> wrote:
    TK> The another question is whether this document needs to be WG
    TK> document or not. As it seems to be that we are updating the
    TK> RFC5996 and obsoleting stuff from it, there seemed to be some
    TK> people who felt that this should be WG document. Send your
    TK> comments about this too.

if it can fit into the charter, and/or our AD will let us, then yes.

-- 
Michael Richardson
-on the road-

---

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:51:23 +0200

> that, i.e. pick the 3rd option and obsolete the old RSA raw public key

As there as not been any objections to this change, I will change my
draft to say that RFC 5996 format is MUST NOT, and obsolete the old
RSA public key format. The new draft is already posted as
draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-03.txt.

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey/

Diff:

http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-02&difftype=--html&submit=Go!&url2=draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-03

> this should be WG document. Send your comments about this too. 

Only comment to this in the list was from Michael supporting of making
this to WG document (especially if it can fit to charter).

Yaron said in the meeting that he was unhappy this being individual
since it obsoletes old format.

So now we need a comment from the ADs and/or chairs whether they feel
that this fits our current charter (maintain the IPsec standard and to
facilitate discussion of clarifications, improvements, and extensions
to IPsec, mostly to IKEv2) or do we need to update the charter.

I have feeling that as this updates RFC5996 we should modify the
charter, and accept this as WG item, but that will add some delay, as
I think this document should be ready now, and as we are obsoleting
things it best to get this out as soon as possible... On the other
hand it might be faster to do charter update, than wait for anybody in
the list to say anything about this issue :-)
-- 
[email-masked]

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:15:22 -0500

> to IPsec, mostly to IKEv2) or do we need to update the charter.

The one sentence change to add this to the charter is on today's telechat.

spt

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:07:01 -0500

> The one sentence change to add this to the charter is on today's telechat.

Ugh .. I sent it in too late so it's on the next telechat.

spt