IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-cfrg-pake-reqs
conflict-review-irtf-cfrg-pake-reqs-00
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2017-02-06
|
00 | Amy Vezza | The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: draft-irtf-cfrg-pake-reqs@ietf.org, irsg@irtf.org, "Internet Research Steering Group" , … The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: draft-irtf-cfrg-pake-reqs@ietf.org, irsg@irtf.org, "Internet Research Steering Group" , irtf-chair@irtf.org, cfrg-chairs@ietf.org Cc: "The IESG" , iana@iana.org, "IETF-Announce" Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-irtf-cfrg-pake-reqs-07 The IESG has completed a review of draft-irtf-cfrg-pake-reqs-07 consistent with RFC5742. The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Requirements for PAKE schemes' as an Informational RFC. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document and IETF work. The IESG would also like the IRTF to review the comments in the datatracker related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the history log. The IESG review is documented at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-irtf-cfrg-pake-reqs/ A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-pake-reqs/ The process for such documents is described in RFC 5743 Thank you, The IESG Secretary |
|
2017-02-06
|
00 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the conflict review response |
|
2017-02-06
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2017-02-06
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement sent from Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent |
|
2017-02-02
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
|
2017-02-02
|
00 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
|
2017-02-02
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
|
2017-02-01
|
00 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
|
2017-02-01
|
00 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
|
2017-02-01
|
00 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
|
2017-02-01
|
00 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
|
2017-02-01
|
00 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
|
2017-02-01
|
00 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
|
2017-02-01
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Pakes, shmakes;-) Section 4 says: " A PAKE scheme MUST be accompanied with a security proof with clearly stated assumptions and models … [Ballot comment] Pakes, shmakes;-) Section 4 says: " A PAKE scheme MUST be accompanied with a security proof with clearly stated assumptions and models used. " Section 8 says: " R2: A PAKE scheme SHOULD come with a security proof and clearly state its assumptions and models." Those seem to me to be in conflict. More generally section 8 is a bit weird - I think it needs to restrict itself to CFRG PAKE schemes or something. There's no way to prevent someone going to the ISE (or IETF) with a scheme that does not meet these reqs. That is, we do not have a PAKE-police. |
|
2017-02-01
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
|
2017-02-01
|
00 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
|
2017-02-01
|
00 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
|
2017-01-27
|
00 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2017-01-27
|
00 | Kathleen Moriarty | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2017-01-27
|
00 | Kathleen Moriarty | Conflict Review State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Review |
|
2017-01-26
|
00 | Kathleen Moriarty | New version available: conflict-review-irtf-cfrg-pake-reqs-00.txt |
|
2017-01-17
|
00 | Kathleen Moriarty | Telechat date has been changed to 2017-02-02 from 2017-01-19 |
|
2017-01-17
|
00 | Kathleen Moriarty | Shepherding AD changed to Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2017-01-17
|
00 | Kathleen Moriarty | Conflict Review State changed to AD Review from Needs Shepherd |
|
2017-01-10
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-01-19 |
|
2017-01-10
|
00 | Lars Eggert | IETF conflict review requested |