draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-01.txt   draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-02.txt 
Network Working Group J. Pezeshki Network Working Group J. Pezeshki
Internet-Draft E. Ertekin Internet-Draft E. Ertekin
Expires: August 28, 2007 R. Jasani Intended status: Experimental R. Jasani
C. Christou Expires: December 3, 2007 C. Christou
Booz Allen Hamilton Booz Allen Hamilton
February 24, 2007 June 1, 2007
IKEv2 Extensions to Support Header Compression over IPsec (HCoIPsec) IKEv2 Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec
draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-01 (RoHCoIPsec)
draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-02
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 28, 2007. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 3, 2007.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract Abstract
When using Header Compression (HC) schemes (e.g. ROHC [ROHC]) in When using Robust Header Compression (RoHC [ROHC]) in conjunction
conjunction with IPsec [IPSEC] (i.e. [HCOIPSEC]) a mechanism is with IPsec [IPSEC] (i.e. [RoHCOIPSEC]) a mechanism is needed to
needed to negotiate ROHC configuration parameters between end-points negotiate RoHC configuration parameters between end-points prior to
prior to operation. Internet Key Exchange (IKE) is a mechanism which operation. Internet Key Exchange (IKE) is a mechanism which can be
can be leveraged to handle these negotiations. This document leveraged to handle these negotiations. This document specifies
specifies extensions to Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2 [IKEV2]) that extensions to Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2 [IKEV2]) that will allow
will allow ROHC and its associated configuration parameters to be RoHC and its associated configuration parameters to be negotiated for
negotiated for IPsec security associations (SAs). IPsec security associations (SAs).
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Header Compression Channel Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. RoHC Channel Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Negotiation of Header Compression Parameters . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Negotiation of RoHC Channel Parameters . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.1. Profiles Suboption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.1. Profiles Suboption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Increased packet header overhead due to IPsec protection can result Increased packet header overhead due to IPsec protection can result
in inefficient utilization of bandwidth. Coupling HC with IPsec in inefficient utilization of bandwidth. Coupling RoHC with IPsec
offers an efficient way to transfer protected IP traffic. offers an efficient way to transfer protected IP traffic.
HC schemes require configuration parameters to be negotiated between For proper RoHCoIPsec [ROHCOIPSEC] operation, RoHC requires
the compressor and decompressor, prior to operation. Current hop-by- configuration parameters to be negotiated between the compressor and
hop ROHC schemes negotiate these parameters through a link-layer decompressor, prior to operation. Current specifications of hop-by-
protocol such as Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) (i.e. ROHC over PPP hop RoHC schemes negotiate these parameters through a link-layer
[ROHCPPP]). Similarly, key exchange protocols (e.g. IKEv2) exist, protocol such as Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) (i.e. RoHC over PPP
which are commonly used to negotiate parameters between IPsec peers [ROHCPPP]). Similarly, key exchange protocols (e.g. IKEv2) are
before a SA can be established. This document proposes the use of commonly used to negotiate parameters between IPsec peers before a SA
IPsec's parameter negotiation mechanism, IKE, to handle ROHC channel can be established. This document proposes the use of IKEv2 to
configuration for HCoIPsec. Various extensions to IKEv2, designed to handle RoHC channel configuration for RoHCoIPsec, and details various
provide this functionality, are detailed within this document. extensions to IKEv2 which are intended to provide this functionality.
2. Header Compression Channel Negotiation 2. RoHC Channel Negotiation
The initialization of a ROHC session requires the negotiation of a The initialization of a RoHC session requires the negotiation of a
set of configuration parameters (e.g. maximum context identifier set of configuration parameters (e.g. MAX_CID, etc.). As such, a
length, etc.). As such, a mechanism must exist for a ROHC enabled mechanism must exist for a RoHC enabled device to share a list of
device to share a list of supported HC parameters with its peer, and supported RoHC parameters with its peer, and for the peer to select
for the peer to select the appropriate parameters from this list. the appropriate parameters from this list.
Similarly, negotiable parameters must also be shared between IPsec Similarly, negotiable parameters must also be shared between IPsec
peers before a SA can be established. To perform this negotiation, a peers before a SA can be established. To perform this negotiation, a
key exchange protocol, IKEv2, is commonly used. IKEv2 is an key exchange protocol, IKEv2, is commonly used. IKEv2 is an
extensible protocol that negotiates parameters via request/response extensible protocol that negotiates parameters via request/response
message pairs (i.e. exchanges). message pairs (i.e. exchanges).
A set of extensions to IKEv2 can be defined, which will allow for A set of extensions to IKEv2 can be defined, which will allow for
ROHC parameters to be negotiated during the creation and rekeying of RoHC parameters to be negotiated during the creation and rekeying of
Child SAs. This new Notify payload will contain values for the set Child SAs. This new Notify payload will contain values for the set
of ROHC parameters to be negotiated between the two ROHC peers. of RoHC parameters to be negotiated between the two RoHC peers.
2.1. Negotiation of Header Compression Parameters 2.1. Negotiation of RoHC Channel Parameters
ROHC configuration parameters will be negotiated at either the RoHC configuration parameters will be negotiated at either the
establishment or rekeying of a Child SA. Specifically, a Notify establishment or rekeying of a Child SA. Specifically, a Notify
payload will be used during the IKE_AUTH and CREATE_CHILD_SA payload will be used during the IKE_AUTH and CREATE_CHILD_SA
exchanges to negotiate the HCoIPsec session. The Notify payload sent exchanges to negotiate the RoHCoIPsec session. The Notify payload
by the initiator will contain the configuration parameters for the sent by the initiator will contain the configuration parameters for
ROHC scheme. Upon receipt of the initiator's request, the responder the RoHC scheme. Upon receipt of the initiator's request, the
will either ignore the payload (if it doesn't support ROHC or the responder will either ignore the payload (if it doesn't support RoHC
proposed parameters) or respond with a Notify payload that contains or the proposed parameters) or respond with a Notify payload that
the accepted negotiable parameters. contains the accepted RoHC channel parameters.
A new Notify Message Type value, denoted ROHC_SUPPORTED, will be A new Notify Message Type value, denoted ROHC_SUPPORTED, will be
added to indicate that the Notify payload is conveying ROHC channel added to indicate that the Notify payload is conveying RoHC channel
parameters. As defined in [IPSEC], the Notify payload is specified parameters. As defined in [IKEV2], the Notify payload is specified
as follows: as follows:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Next Payload !C! RESERVED ! Payload Length ! ! Next Payload !C! RESERVED ! Payload Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Protocol ID ! SPI Size ! Notify Message Type ! ! Protocol ID ! SPI Size ! Notify Message Type !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! ! ! !
~ Notification Data ~ ~ Notification Data ~
! ! ! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Notify Payload Figure 1: Notify Payload
To negotiate HCoIPsec, the values for the fields in the Notify To negotiate RoHCoIPsec, the values for the fields in the Notify
payload are defined as follows: payload are defined as follows:
Next Payload (1 octet) Next Payload (1 octet)
Identifier for the payload type of the next payload in the Identifier for the payload type of the next payload in the
message. If the current payload is the last in the message, then message. If the current payload is the last in the message, then
this field will be 0. The Next Payload value of the previous this field will be 0. The Next Payload value of the previous
payload must be 41, indicating that this current payload is a payload must be 41, indicating that this current payload is a
Notify Payload. Notify Payload.
Critical (1 bit) Critical (1 bit)
This value is set to zero, indicating that the recipient must skip This value is set to zero, indicating that the recipient must skip
this payload if it does not understand the payload type code in this payload if it does not understand the payload type code in
the Next Payload field of the previous payload. the Next Payload field of the previous payload.
RESERVED (7 bits) RESERVED (7 bits)
Must be sent as zero, and must be ignored on receipt. Must be sent as zero, and must be ignored on receipt.
Payload Length (2 octets) Payload Length (2 octets)
Length in octets of the current payload, including the generic Length in octets of the current payload, including the generic
payload header. payload header (the generic payload header is defined in [IKEV2],
section 3.2).
Protocol ID (1 octet) Protocol ID (1 octet)
If this notification concerns an existing SA, this field indicates If this notification concerns an existing SA, this field indicates
the type of that SA (i.e. IKE_SA, AH [AH], or ESP [ESP]). Since the type of that SA (i.e. IKE_SA, AH [AH], or ESP [ESP]). Since
the ROHC parameters are set at SA creation, and thus do not relate the RoHC parameters are set at SA creation, and thus do not relate
to an existing SA, this field must be set to zero. to an existing SA, this field must be set to zero.
SPI Size (1 octet) SPI Size (1 octet)
Length in octets of the SPI as defined by the IPsec protocol ID. Length in octets of the SPI as defined by the IPsec protocol ID.
This value must be set to zero, since no SPI is applicable (ROHC This value must be set to zero, since no SPI is applicable (RoHC
parameters are set at SA creation, thus the SPI has not been parameters are set at SA creation, thus the SPI has not been
defined). defined).
Notify Message Type (2 octets) Notify Message Type (2 octets)
Specifies the type of notification message. This field must be Specifies the type of notification message. This field must be
set to ROHC_SUPPORTED. set to ROHC_SUPPORTED.
ROHC configuration parameters will be communicated via a new Notify RoHC configuration parameters will be communicated via a new Notify
message type, denoted ROHC_SUPPORTED. The ROHC configuration message type, denoted ROHC_SUPPORTED. The RoHC configuration
parameters will be listed within the Notification Data field in the parameters will be listed within the Notification Data field in the
following format: following format:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! HC PRMTR LNTH ! MAX_CID ! MRRU... !ROHC PRMTR LNTH! MAX_CID ! MRRU...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
...MRRU ! MAX_HEADER ! ! ...MRRU ! MAX_HEADER ! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
! ! ! !
~ suboptions... ~ ~ suboptions... ~
! ! ! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Notification Data field Figure 2: Notification Data field
HC PARAMETER LENGTH (1 octet) ROHC PARAMETER LENGTH (1 octet)
>= 7 (i.e. the combined length of HC PARAMETER LENGTH, MAX_CID, >= 7 (i.e. the combined length of RoHC PARAMETER LENGTH, MAX_CID,
MRRU, and MAX_HEADER) MRRU, and MAX_HEADER)
MAX_CID (2 octets) MAX_CID (2 octets)
The MAX_CID field indicates the maximum value of a context The MAX_CID field indicates the maximum value of a context
identifier. This value must be at least 0 and at most 16383 (The identifier. This value must be at least 0 and at most 16383 (The
value 0 implies having one context). value 0 implies having one context).
Suggested value: 15 Suggested value: 15
Note: The value of LARGE_CIDS will be implicitly determined by Note: The value of LARGE_CIDS will be implicitly determined by
this value (i.e. if MAX_CID is <= 15, LARGE_CIDS will be assumed this value (i.e. if MAX_CID is <= 15, LARGE_CIDS will be assumed
to be 0). to be 0).
MRRU (2 octets) MRRU (2 octets)
The MRRU field indicates the maximum reconstructed reception unit The MRRU field indicates the maximum reconstructed reception unit
(see [ROHC], section 5.1.1). (see [ROHC], section 5.1.1).
Suggested value: 0 Suggested value: 0
Note: The MRRU value is used in conjunction with the segmentation The MRRU value is used in conjunction with the segmentation
protocol defined in ROHC. Since a HCoIPsec compressor and protocol defined in RoHC. Since RoHCoIPsec will generally be
decompressor will generally be separated by multiple link-layer implemented across multiple link-layer "hops", segmentation will
"hops", segmentation will not be needed. In these cases the MRRU not normally be required. In these cases the MRRU value will be
value should be set to zero, indicating that no segmented ROHC set to zero, indicating that no segment headers are allowed on the
segmented-header packets are allowed on the channel. channel.
MAX_HEADER (2 octets) MAX_HEADER (2 octets)
The largest header size in octets that may be compressed. The largest header size in octets that may be compressed.
Suggested value: 168 octets Suggested value: 168 octets
Note: The MAX_HEADER parameter is not used for all ROHC profiles. Note: The MAX_HEADER parameter is not used for all RoHC profiles.
If none of the ROHC profiles require this field, this value is If none of the RoHC profiles require this field, this value is
ignored. ignored.
suboptions suboptions
The suboptions field consists of one or more suboptions. Each The suboptions field consists of one or more suboptions. Each
suboption consists of a type field, a length field and zero or suboption consists of a type field, a length field and zero or
more parameter octets, as defined by the suboption type. The more parameter octets, as defined by the suboption type. The
value of the length field indicates the length of the suboption in value of the length field indicates the length of the suboption in
its entirety, including the lengths of the type and length fields. its entirety, including the lengths of the type and length fields.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Type ! Length ! Parameters... ! Type ! Length ! Parameters...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Suboption Figure 3: Suboption
Note: When a pair of SAs are created (one in each direction), the Note: When a pair of SAs are created (one in each direction), the
ROHC channel parameter FEEDBACK_FOR is set implicitly to the other RoHC channel parameter FEEDBACK_FOR is set implicitly to the other
SA of the pair (i.e. the SA pointing in the reverse direction). SA of the pair (i.e. the SA pointing in the reverse direction).
2.1.1. Profiles Suboption 2.1.1. Profiles Suboption
The set of profiles to be enabled on a Child SA is subject to The set of profiles to be enabled on a Child SA is subject to
negotiation. negotiation.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Type ! Length ! Profiles... ! Type ! Length ! Profiles...
skipping to change at page 7, line 20 skipping to change at page 7, line 20
Figure 4: Profiles suboption Figure 4: Profiles suboption
Type Type
1 1
Length Length
2n+2 2n+2
Value Value
n octet-pairs in ascending order, each octet-pair specifying a n octet-pairs in ascending order, each octet-pair specifying a
ROHC profile supported. Values negotiated are assigned in the RoHC profile supported. Values negotiated are assigned in the
ROHC profile identifiers registry [ROHCPROF]. RoHC profile identifiers registry [ROHCPROF].
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
The negotiated HC schemes and parameters negotiated via IKEv2 do not The RoHC parameters negotiated via IKEv2 do not add any new
add any new vulnerabilities beyond those associated with the normal vulnerabilities beyond those associated with the normal operation of
operation of IKEv2. IKEv2.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new Notify Message Type. Therefore, if the This document defines a new Notify Message Type. Therefore, IANA is
proposal is accepted, IANA is requested to allocate on value from the requested to allocate one value from the IKEv2 Notify Message Types
IKEv2 Notify Message Types registry to indicate ROHC_SUPPORTED. registry to indicate ROHC_SUPPORTED.
5. Acknowledgments 5. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mr. Sean O'Keeffe, Mr. James Kohler, The authors would like to thank Mr. Sean O'Keeffe, Mr. James Kohler,
and Ms. Linda Noone of the Department of Defense, as well as Mr. Rich and Ms. Linda Noone of the Department of Defense, as well as Mr. Rich
Espy of OPnet for their contributions and support in the development Espy of OPnet for their contributions and support in the development
of this document. The authors would also like to thank Mr. Tero of this document. The authors would also like to thank Mr. Tero
Kivinen for providing his technical expertise for this document. In Kivinen for providing his technical expertise for this document. In
addition, the authors would like to thank the following for their addition, the authors would like to thank the following for their
numerous reviews and comments to this document: numerous reviews and comments to this document:
Dr. Stephen Kent Dr. Stephen Kent
Dr. Carsten Bormann Dr. Carsten Bormann
Mr. Lars-Erik Jonnson Mr. Lars-Erik Jonnson
Finally, the authors would also like to thank Mr. Tom Conkle, Ms. Finally, the authors would also like to thank Mr. Tom Conkle, Ms.
Michele Casey, and Mr. Etzel Brower. Michele Casey, and Mr. Etzel Brower.
6. References 6. Normative References
6.1. Normative References
[ROHC] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H., [ROHC] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H.,
Hannu, H., Jonsson, L., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le, K., Hannu, H., Jonsson, L., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le, K.,
Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K., Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K.,
Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header
Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP, Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP,
ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, July 2001. ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, July 2001.
[IPSEC] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the [IPSEC] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[HCOIPSEC] [RoHCOIPSEC]
Ertekin, E., Christou, C., and R. Jasani, "Integration of Ertekin, E., Christou, C., and R. Jasani, "Integration of
Header Compression over IPsec Security Associations", work Robust Header Compression over IPsec Security
in progress , February 2007. Associations", work in progress , June 2006.
[IKEV2] Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol", [IKEV2] Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
RFC 4306, December 2005. RFC 4306, December 2005.
[ROHCPROF]
"RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Profile Identifiers",
www.iana.org/assignments/ROHC-pro-ids , October 2005.
6.2. Informative References
[ROHCPPP] Bormann, C., "Robust Header Compression (ROHC) over PPP", [ROHCPPP] Bormann, C., "Robust Header Compression (ROHC) over PPP",
RFC 3241, April 2002. RFC 3241, April 2002.
[AH] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, [AH] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
December 2005. December 2005.
[ESP] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", [ESP] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, December 2005. RFC 4303, December 2005.
[ROHCPROF]
"RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Profile Identifiers",
www.iana.org/assignments/ROHC-pro-ids , October 2005.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jonah Pezeshki Jonah Pezeshki
Booz Allen Hamilton Booz Allen Hamilton
13200 Woodland Park Dr. 13200 Woodland Park Dr.
Herndon, VA 20171 Herndon, VA 20171
US US
Email: pezeshki_jonah@bah.com Email: pezeshki_jonah@bah.com
Emre Ertekin Emre Ertekin
Booz Allen Hamilton Booz Allen Hamilton
13200 Woodland Park Dr. 13200 Woodland Park Dr.
Herndon, VA 20171 Herndon, VA 20171
US US
Email: ertekin_emre@bah.com Email: ertekin_emre@bah.com
Rohan Jasani Rohan Jasani
Booz Allen Hamilton Booz Allen Hamilton
 End of changes. 36 change blocks. 
87 lines changed or deleted 82 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/