Subject: [rohc] Updated ROHCoIPsec I-Ds

From: "Ertekin, Emre [USA]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 13:53:20 -0500

Hi All, 

We have revised the three ROHCoIPsec internet-drafts based on comments
we received during the WGLC.  The updated drafts can be found at:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rohc-hcoipsec-10.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hco
ipsec-08.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rohc-ipsec-extensions-hco
ipsec-04.txt

-------------------------

The following summarizes major changes to each draft:

(1)  draft-ietf-rohc-hcoipsec-10.txt:
	-- Clarified Section 5.2 to indicate that ROHCoIPsec poses
challenges for devices inspecting ESP-NULL encrypted packets
	-- Added a paragraph to Section 6.1; the paragraph references
RFC 3759 (to help describe ROHCoIPsec operation)

(2)  draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-08:
	-- Updated text throughout the draft to reflect a
signaling-based approach for initialization of ROHC channel parameters
	-- Updated the format of the ROHC_SUPPORTED Notify message; the
contents of this message are now expressed through "ROHC Attribute
Types"
	-- Added the capability to signal an ICV length for the
integrity algorithm used in conjunction with ROHC
	-- Included text in the IANA considerations section that
requests allocations for "ROHC Attribute Types" within the IKEv2
Parameters registry
	
(3)  draft-ietf-rohc-ipsec-extensions-hcoipsec-04:
	-- Clarified that the ROHC Data Item exists for both inbound and
outbound SAs, and the channel parameters associated with
inbound/outbound SAs
	-- Updated the Security considerations section: deleted text
which recommended that the strength of the integrity check used with
ROHC should be at least the same strength as the integrity-check used
with IPsec; furthermore, indicated that the use of padding to mitigate
traffic flow analysis reduces the efficiency gains offered by header
compression

--------------------------

Thanks to Yoav and Bob who served as CDRs during the WGLC.  Thanks also
to the wider ROHC working group for their review of these documents.  

Please let me know if you have any questions.

BR,
Emre
_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc