As document shepherd, I have completed the write-up for draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-mlkem, and would request that the document be published.
The write-up: This writeup is for the IETF draft draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-mlkem-04, intended to be a Proposed Standard. Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? I believe that the WG reached a broad consensus. A total of 18 people agreed with the adoption call and 8 people agreed with the WGLC. No disagreement was seen on the mailing list or in any of the working group meetings. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. There was some small controversy about a possible downgrade attack (addressed by draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-downgrade-prevention), but that really was against the RFC 9370 structure that this can use, not this draft itself (and is being addressed separately by the referenced draft) 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No such threat of an appeal or extreme discontent was noted. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? There exist at least four implementations in the public (Cisco, Palo Alto Networks, Strongswan, Apple). The document does not currently include an Implementation Status section. Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. No, it does not. It is entirely an internal option for IKE. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. It does not involve a MIB, YANG, media types or URI, hence such reviews are not required. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC 8342? The document does not contain a YANG module 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. No parts of the document were written in a formal language. Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? I believe that it is ready to be handed off to the Area Director 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? No issues need to be addressed; the security considerations already address things adequately. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? The request is for a Proposed Standard; I believe it is appropriate because it is stable, has resolved known design choices (which, in this case, are not that many), is believed to be well-understood, has received significant community review, and has received a good amount of community interest. I believe that the datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. A query for IPR claims was made on the IPsec mailing list on 2/27/26; the author (Panos) replied on 2/27/26 that he was unaware of any such IPR claims. As of 3/5/26, no one else has responded with any claims. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. The sole author expressed in a private email a willingness to be acknowledged as an author. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) I worked with the author to work out these nits. The current version of the draft (draft-ietf- ipsecme-ikev2-mlkem-04) has two known valid minor nits: a) two information references (RFC 8784, RFC 9867) which are not mentioned in the text (they were to text that has since been removed) and b) a nonASCII quotation mark that could be replaced by an ASCII one. Neither of these are fsshowstoppers. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References. I believe that the references are categorized properly. Now, it is possible to implement this draft without RFC 9242 or RFC 9370; however, in most situations, they will be required, and hence I believe their categorization as normative is appropriate. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative references are freely available, either as RFCs or as NIST publications. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so, list them. There are no normative downward references. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? All normative references are in a complete state (either a published RFC or NIST publication). 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No, this document does not change the status of any RFC. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126). The IANA considerations section is appropriate. IANA has already added preliminary entries into its "Transform Type 4 - Key Exchange Method Transform IDs" registry; all that remains is for IANA to retarget them to this RFC when it is published. In addition, the version of the protocol in the current draft is compatible with the preliminary version cited, hence retargeting the IANA entries does not cause interoperability issues. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No new IANA registries are required.
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
