draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-07.txt   draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-08.txt 
Network Working Group E. Ertekin Network Working Group E. Ertekin
Internet-Draft C. Christou Internet-Draft C. Christou
Expires: April 17, 2009 R. Jasani Expires: August 6, 2009 R. Jasani
J. Pezeshki
Booz Allen Hamilton Booz Allen Hamilton
October 14, 2008 T. Kivinen
Safenet, Inc.
C. Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
February 2, 2009
IKEv2 Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec IKEv2 Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec
(ROHCoIPsec) (ROHCoIPsec)
draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-07 draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-08
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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.
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
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
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 April 17, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 6, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Abstract Abstract
In order to integrate ROHC with IPsec [ROHCOIPSEC], a mechanism is In order to integrate ROHC with IPsec [ROHCOIPSEC], a mechanism is
needed to negotiate ROHC configuration parameters between end-points. needed to signal ROHC channel parameters between end-points.
Internet Key Exchange (IKE) is a mechanism which can be leveraged to Internet Key Exchange (IKE) is a mechanism which can be leveraged to
handle these negotiations. This document specifies extensions to exchange these parameters. This document specifies extensions to
IKEv2 [IKEV2] that will allow ROHC and its associated configuration IKEv2 [IKEV2] that will allow ROHC and its associated channel
parameters to be negotiated for IPsec security associations (SAs). parameters to be signaled for IPsec security associations (SAs).
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. ROHC Channel Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. ROHC Channel Initialization for ROHCoIPsec . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Negotiation of ROHC Channel Parameters . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. ROHC Channel Parameters that are Signaled . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.1. ROHC_SUPPORTED Notify Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.2. ROHC Attribute Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. ROHC Channel Parameters that are Implicitly Set . . . . . . 7
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Increased packet header overhead due to IPsec [IPSEC] can result in Increased packet header overhead due to IPsec [IPSEC] can result in
the inefficient utilization of bandwidth. Coupling ROHC [ROHC] with the inefficient utilization of bandwidth. Coupling ROHC [ROHC] with
IPsec offers an efficient way to transfer protected IP traffic. IPsec offers an efficient way to transfer protected IP traffic.
The operation of ROHCoIPsec [ROHCOIPSEC] requires configuration ROHCoIPsec [ROHCOIPSEC] requires configuration parameters to be
parameters to be negotiated between the compressor and decompressor. initialized at the compressor and decompressor. Current
Current specifications for hop-by-hop ROHC negotiate these parameters specifications for hop-by-hop ROHC negotiate these parameters through
through a link-layer protocol such as Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) a link-layer protocol such as Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) (i.e.
(i.e. ROHC over PPP [ROHCPPP]). Since key exchange protocols (e.g. ROHC over PPP [ROHC-PPP]). Since key exchange protocols (e.g.
IKEv2) can be used to negotiate parameters between IPsec peers, this IKEv2) can be used to dynamically establish parameters between IPsec
document defines extensions to IKEv2 to negotiate ROHC parameters for peers, this document defines extensions to IKEv2 to signal ROHC
ROHCoIPsec. parameters for ROHCoIPsec.
2. ROHC Channel Negotiation 2. ROHC Channel Initialization for ROHCoIPsec
The initialization of a ROHC session requires the negotiation of a The following subsections define extensions to IKEv2 which enables an
set of configuration parameters (e.g. MAX_CID, PROFILES, etc.). The initiator and a responder to signal parameters required to establish
following subsections define extensions to IKEv2 which enables an a ROHC channel for a ROHCoIPsec session.
initiator to propose a set of ROHC parameters; the responder selects
the appropriate parameters from this list, and responds with the
accepted parameters for the ROHC channel.
2.1. Negotiation of ROHC Channel Parameters 2.1. ROHC Channel Parameters that are Signaled
ROHC configuration parameters will be negotiated at either the ROHC channel parameters will be signaled at either the establishment
establishment or rekeying of a Child SA. Specifically, a new Notify or rekeying of a Child SA. Specifically, a new Notify message type
message type is used during the IKE_AUTH and CREATE_CHILD_SA is used during the IKE_AUTH and CREATE_CHILD_SA exchanges to convey
exchanges to negotiate these parameters. these parameters.
The Notify payload sent by the initiator contains the configuration The Notify payload sent by the initiator contains the channel
parameters for the ROHC implementation. Upon receipt of the parameters for the ROHC implementation. Specifically, these
initiator's request, the responder will either ignore the payload (if parameters indicate the capabilities of the ROHC decompressor at the
it doesn't support ROHC or the proposed parameters) or respond with a initiator. Upon receipt of the initiator's request, the responder
Notify payload that contains the accepted ROHC channel parameters. will either ignore the payload (if it doesn't support ROHC or the
The accepted parameters are an intersection between the parameters proposed parameters) or respond with a Notify payload that contains
proposed by the initiator and the parameters supported by the its own ROHC channel parameters.
responder (e.g. if the initiator proposes a MAX_CID value of 15, but
the responder only supports a MAX_CID value of 13, the responder will
respond with a value of 13, which is supported by both parties).
Note that only one Notify payload is used to convey ROHC parameters Note that only one Notify payload is used to convey ROHC parameters.
per exchange. If multiple Notify payloads relaying ROHC parameters If multiple Notify payloads containing ROHC parameters are received,
are received by the responder, all but the first such Notify payload all but the first such Notify payload must be dropped. If the
must be dropped. If the initiator does not receive a Notify Payload initiator does not receive a Notify Payload with the responder's ROHC
with the responder's accepted ROHC channel parameters, ROHC must not channel parameters, ROHC must not be enabled on the Child SA.
be enabled on the Child SA.
A new Notify Message Type value, denoted ROHC_SUPPORTED, will A new Notify Message Type value, denoted ROHC_SUPPORTED, indicates
indicate that the Notify payload is conveying ROHC channel that the Notify payload is conveying ROHC channel parameters. The
parameters. The Notify Payload (as defined in [IKEV2]) is value for the ROHC_SUPPORTED message is specified in Section 4.
illustrated in Figure 1 below:
The Notify Payload (defined in [IKEV2]) is illustrated in Figure 1.
1 2 3 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 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 !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! ! ! !
~ Security Parameter Index (SPI) ~ ~ Security Parameter Index (SPI) ~
skipping to change at page 4, line 39 skipping to change at page 4, line 33
The fields of the Notify Payload are set as follows: The fields of the Notify Payload are set 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. Further details can be found in [IKEV2]. message. Further details can be found in [IKEV2].
Critical (1 bit) Critical (1 bit)
Since all IKEv2 implementations must support the Notify Payload, Since all IKEv2 implementations must support the Notify Payload,
this value is zero. this value is zero.
Payload Length (2 octets)
As defined in [IKEV2], this field indicates the length of the
current payload, including the generic payload header.
Protocol ID (1 octet) Protocol ID (1 octet)
Since this Notification message is used during the creation of a Since this Notification message is used during the creation of a
Child SA, this field must be set to zero. Child SA, this field must be set to zero.
SPI Size (1 octet) SPI Size (1 octet)
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)
This field must be set to ROHC_SUPPORTED. This field must be set to ROHC_SUPPORTED.
ROHC configuration parameters will be communicated via a new Notify 2.1.1. ROHC_SUPPORTED Notify Message
message type, denoted ROHC_SUPPORTED. The ROHC configuration
parameters will be listed within the Notification Data field of the The ROHC_SUPPORTED Notify message is used to signal channel
Notify payload in the following format (default values for the parameters between ROHCoIPsec compressor and decompressor. The
configuration parameters are consistent with [ROHCPPP]): message contains a list of "ROHC Attributes" which contain the
parameters required for the ROHCoIPsec session.
The format for signaling ROHC Attributes takes a similar format to
the Transform Attributes described in Section 3.3.5 of [IKEV2]. The
ROHC Attribute is shown in Figure 2.
1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! MAX_CID | RESERVED |PROFILES_LENGTH! !A! ROHC Attribute Type ! AF=0 ROHC Attribute Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ !F! ! AF=1 ROHC Attribute Value !
! !
~ PROFILES... ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! ! ! AF=0 ROHC Attribute Value !
~ INTEGRITY ALGORITHMS... ~ ! AF=1 Not Transmitted !
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2. Notification Data field for the ROHC_SUPPORTED Notify Figure 2. Format of the ROHC Attribute.
message type.
MAX_CID (2 octets) o ROHC Attribute Type (2 octets) - Unique identifier for each type
The MAX_CID field indicates the maximum value of a context of ROHC attribute (see Section 2.1.2). The most significant bit
identifier. This value must be at least 0 and at most 16383 (The in the field is the Attribute Format (AF) bit. If the AF bit is a
value 0 implies having one context). zero (0), then the ROHC Attribute is expressed in a Type/Length/
Value (TLV) format. If the AF bit is a one (1), then the ROHC
Attribute is expressed in a Type/Value (TV) format.
o ROHC Attribute Length (2 octets) - Length (in octets) of the
Attribute Value. When the AF bit is a one (1), the ROHC Attribute
Value is 2 octets and the ROHC Attribute Length field is not
present.
o ROHC Attribute Value (variable length) - Value of the ROHC
Attribute associated with the ROHC Attribute Type. If the AF bit
is a zero (0), this field's length is defined by the ROHC
Attribute Length field. If the AF bit is a one (1), the length of
the ROHC Attribute Value is 2 octets.
2.1.2. ROHC Attribute Types
This section describes four ROHC Attribute Types: MAX_CID,
ROHC_PROFILES, ROHC_INTEG, and ROHC_ICV_LEN. The value which defines
each ROHC Attribute Type is specified in Section 4.
Maximum Context Identifier (MAX_CID, AF = 1)
The MAX_CID attribute is a mandatory attribute. Exactly one
MAX_CID attribute must be sent. The MAX_CID field indicates the
maximum value of a context Identifier supported by the ROHCoIPsec
decompressor. This attribute value is two octets in length. The
range of values for MAX_CID must be at least 0 and at most 16383
(the value 0 implies having one context). The recipient of the
MAX_CID Attribute must only use up to MAX_CID context identifiers
for compression.
Suggested value: 15 Suggested value: 15
PROFILES_LENGTH (1 octet) ROHC Profile (ROHC_PROFILE, AF = 1)
The total number of profiles contained within the PROFILES field The ROHC_PROFILE attribute is a mandatory attribute. At least one
(note that each ROHC profile is 2-octets in length). ROHC_PROFILE attribute(s) must be sent. A ROHC_PROFILE attribute
contains a two-octet profile supported by the ROHCoIPsec
decompressor. The recipient of a ROHC_PROFILE attribute(s) must
only use the profile(s) proposed for compression.
PROFILES (variable) Several common profiles are defined in [ROHCV1] and [ROHCV2].
The set of profiles to be enabled for the ROHC process. Profiles Note, however, that two versions of the same profile must not be
are further detailed in [ROHC]. In addition, several common signaled. For example, if a ROHCoIPsec decompressor supports both
profiles are defined in [ROHCPROF]. These 16-bit profile ROHCv1 UDP and ROHCv2 UDP profiles, both profiles must not be
identifiers are to be sent in network byte order. signaled.
Integrity Algorithm for Verification of Decompressed Headers
(ROHC_INTEG, AF = 1)
The ROHC_INTEG attribute is a mandatory attribute. There must be
at least one ROHC_INTEG attribute contained within the
ROHC_SUPPORTED Notify message. The attribute contains an
integrity algorithm that is used to ensure the integrity of the
decompressed packets (i.e. ensure that the packet headers are
properly decompressed). The integrity algorithm is represented by
a two octet value that corresponds to the value listed in [IKEV2-
PARA] "For Transform Type 3 (Integrity Algorithm)" section. Upon
receipt of the ROHC_INTEG attribute(s), the responder must select
exactly one of proposed algorithms and send the selected algorithm
back to the initiator. The selected integrity algorithm must be
used in both directions.
INTEGRITY ALGORITHMS
The set of Integrity Algorithms that may be use to ensure the
integrity of the decompressed packets (i.e. ensure that the packet
headers are properly decompressed). Each Integrity Algorithm is
represented by a 2-octet value that corresponds to the value
listed in [IKEV2-PARA] "For Transform Type 3 (Integrity
Algorithm)" section.
It is noted that: It is noted that:
1. The length of this field is inferred from the Notify Payload's 1. The key for this Integrity Algorithm is computed using the
"Payload Length" field.
2. The key for this Integrity Algorithm is computed using the
same method as is used to compute IPsec's Integrity Algorithm same method as is used to compute IPsec's Integrity Algorithm
key ([IKEV2], Section 2.17). key ([IKEV2], Section 2.17).
3. A ROHCoIPsec implementation may choose to negotiate a value of 2. A ROHCoIPsec initiator may signal a value of zero (0x0000) in
"0" in this field (i.e., NONE, as defined in the Integrity a ROHC_INTEG attribute. This corresponds to "NONE" in the
Algorithm Transform ID registry). Integrity Algorithm Transform ID registry. The ROHCoIPsec
responder may select this value by responding to the initiator
with a ROHC_INTEG attribute of zero (0x0000). In this
scenario, no integrity algorithm is applied in either
direction.
The negotiated set of ROHC parameters are associated with the Integrity Algorithm Length (ROHC_ICV_LEN, AF = 1)
inbound/outbound pair of SAs established by each IKEv2 The ROHC_ICV_LEN attribute is an optional attribute. There may be
CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange. zero or one ROHC_ICV_LEN attribute contained within the
ROHC_SUPPORTED Notify message. The attribute specifies the number
of ICV octets the sender expects to receive on incoming ROHC
packets. The ICV of the negotiated ROHC_INTEG algorithms are
truncated to ROHC_ICV_LEN bytes by taking the first ROHC_ICV_LEN
bytes of the output. Both the initiator and responder announce
their preference for their own ICV length. The recipient of the
ROHC_ICV_LEN attribute must truncate the ICV to the length
contained in the message. If ROHC_ICV_LEN length is zero, then no
ICV is calculated or sent. If no ROHC_ICV_LEN attribute is sent
at all or the ROHC_ICV_LEN is larger than the length of the ICV of
selected algorithm, then the full ICV length as specified by the
ROHC_INTEG algorithm is sent.
The following ROHC channel parameters are not negotiated: If an unknown ROHC Attribute Type Value is received, it is silently
ignored.
2.2. ROHC Channel Parameters that are Implicitly Set
The following ROHC channel parameters are not signaled:
o LARGE_CIDS: This value is implicitly determined by the value of o LARGE_CIDS: This value is implicitly determined by the value of
MAX_CID (e.g. if MAX_CID is <= 15, LARGE_CIDS is assumed to be 0). MAX_CID (e.g. if MAX_CID is <= 15, LARGE_CIDS is assumed to be 0).
o MRRU: IPsec implementations will always implement path MTU o MRRU: IPsec implementations will always implement path MTU
discovery; therefore, ROHC packets will never need to use ROHC discovery; therefore, ROHC packets will never need to use ROHC
segmentation over an IPsec SA. As a result, this value will segmentation over an IPsec SA. As a result, this value will
always be zero, and does not need to be negotiated. always be zero, and does not need to be signaled.
o FEEDBACK_FOR: When a pair of SAs are created (one in each o FEEDBACK_FOR: When a pair of SAs are created (one in each
direction), the ROHC channel parameter FEEDBACK_FOR is set direction), the ROHC channel parameter FEEDBACK_FOR is set
implicitly to the other SA of the pair (i.e. the SA pointing in implicitly to the other SA of the pair (i.e. the SA pointing in
the reverse direction). the reverse direction).
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
The ROHC channel parameters negotiated via IKEv2 do not add any new The ROHC channel parameters signaled via IKEv2 do not add any new
vulnerabilities beyond those associated with the normal operation of vulnerabilities beyond those associated with the normal operation of
IKEv2. IKEv2.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new Notify Message (Status Type). Therefore, This document defines a new Notify Message (Status Type). Therefore,
IANA is requested to allocate one value from the IKEv2 Notify Message IANA is requested to allocate one value from the IKEv2 Notify Message
registry to indicate ROHC_SUPPORTED. Note that, since this Notify registry to indicate ROHC_SUPPORTED. Note that, since this Notify
Message is a Status Type, values ranging from 0 to 16383 must not be Message is a Status Type, values ranging from 0 to 16383 must not be
allocated for ROHC_SUPPORTED. allocated for ROHC_SUPPORTED.
In addition, IANA is requested to allocate a "ROHC Attribute Types"
registry in the IKEv2 Parameters Registry [IKEV2-PARA]. Within the
"ROHC Attribute Types" registry, this document allocates the
following values:
Registry
Value ROHC Attribute Type Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------
0 RESERVED [rfcThis]
1 Maximum value of context identifier (MAX_CID) [rfcThis]
2 ROHC Profile (ROHC_PROFILE) [rfcThis]
3 ROHC Integrity Algorithm (ROHC_INTEG) [rfcThis]
4 ROHC ICV Length in bytes (ROHC_ICV_LEN) [rfcThis]
5-65536 Unassigned
Following the policies outlined in [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS], the IANA
policy for assigning new values for the ROHC Attribute Types registry
shall be Specification Required: values and their meanings must be
documented in a permanent and readily available public specification,
in sufficient detail so that interoperability between independent
implementations is possible.
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.
Kivinen for providing his technical expertise for this document. In
addition, the authors would like to thank the following for their The authors would also like to thank Mr. Yoav Nir, and Mr. Robert A
Stangarone Jr.: both served as committed document reviewers for this
specification.
In 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:
o Dr. Stephen Kent o Dr. Stephen Kent
o Dr. Carsten Bormann o Mr. Lars-Erik Jonsson
o Mr. Lars-Erik Jonnson
o Mr. Pasi Eronen o Mr. Pasi Eronen
o Dr. Jonah Pezeshki
o Mr. Carl Knutsson
o Dr. Joseph Touch o Dr. Joseph Touch
o Mr. Yoav Nir
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. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[ROHCOIPSEC] [IPSEC] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Ertekin, E., Christou, C., and R. Jasani, "Integration of Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
Robust Header Compression over IPsec Security
Associations", work in progress , October 2008.
[ROHC] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H., [ROHC] Jonsson, L-E., Pelletier, G., and K. Sandlund, "The RObust
Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 4995, July 2007.
[IKEV2] Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
RFC 4306, December 2005.
[ROHCV1] 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 [ROHCV2] Pelletier, G. and K. Sandlund, "RObust Header Compression
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. Version 2 (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP
Lite", RFC 5225, April 2008.
[IKEV2] Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
RFC 4306, December 2005.
[ROHCPPP] Bormann, C., "Robust Header Compression (ROHC) over PPP",
RFC 3241, April 2002.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[ROHCPROF] [ROHCOIPSEC]
Pelletier, G. and K. Sandlund, "RObust Header Compression Ertekin, E., Jasani, R., Christou, C., and C. Bormann,
Version 2 (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP "Integration of Header Compression over IPsec Security
Lite", www.iana.org/assignments/ROHC-pro-ids , May 2007. Associations", work in progress , February 2009.
[ROHC-PPP]
Bormann, C., "Robust Header Compression (ROHC) over PPP",
RFC 3241, April 2002.
[IKEV2-PARA] [IKEV2-PARA]
IANA, "IKEv2 Parameters, IANA, "IKEv2 Parameters,
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters", http://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters",
January 2008. January 2008.
[IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]
Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
October 1998.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
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
skipping to change at page 8, line 37 skipping to change at page 10, line 31
Email: christou_chris@bah.com Email: christou_chris@bah.com
Rohan Jasani Rohan Jasani
Booz Allen Hamilton Booz Allen Hamilton
13200 Woodland Park Dr. 13200 Woodland Park Dr.
Herndon, VA 20171 Herndon, VA 20171
US US
Email: jasani_rohan@bah.com Email: jasani_rohan@bah.com
Jonah Pezeshki Tero Kivinen
Booz Allen Hamilton Safenet, Inc.
13200 Woodland Park Dr. Fredrikinkatu 47
Herndon, VA 20171 HELSINKI
US FI
Email: pezeshki_jonah@bah.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Email: kivinen@safenet-inc.com
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any Carsten Bormann
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an Universitaet Bremen TZI
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of Postfach 330440
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this Bremen D-28334
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at Germany
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any Email: cabo@tzi.org
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
 End of changes. 45 change blocks. 
171 lines changed or deleted 247 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/