Support for Multiple Hash Algorithms in Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs)
draft-bagnulo-multiple-hash-cga-03

[Ballot comment]
Section 4.1, last paragraph:
>  insecure anyway.  In any case, an implementation must not support two
>  different meanings of a Sec value simultaneously.

Should that be "MUST NOT"?

Nit:
Section 5, last paragraph:
>  for CGAs with that Sec value.  This is so to provide a coherent
                                          XX            X
>  protection both in the hash and the public key techniques.

[Ballot comment]
This is a trivial NIT but .... on a document that has received the review of a standards track document such as this one, I don't think you need to use language like "As far as we understand".

IANA additional comments:

> A new registry is to be created. In the IANA Matrix under Cryptographically
> Generated Addresses (CGA) Name Spaces, a new registry will be created
> called: "CGA Extension Type fields" located at a URL to be determined later.

name for the Registry is "CGA SEC"

> The initial registrations in the CGA Extension Type field registry are:

These are the initial registrations for the "CGA SEC" registry (not for
the CGA Extension Type field registry)

> Name Value Reference
> ------------------- ------- ---------
> SHA-1_0hash2bits 000 [RFC3972]
> SHA-1_16hash2bits 001 [RFC3972]
> SHA-1_32hash2bits 010 [RFC3972]

> Future values are to be registered via through Standards Action.

IANA Last Call Comments:

IANA understands that there is a single action to be completed upon
approval of  this document.

A new registry is to be created. In the IANA Matrix under Cryptographically
Generated Addresses (CGA) Name Spaces, a new registry will be created
called: "CGA Extension Type fields" located at a URL to be determined later.

The initial registrations in the CGA Extension Type field registry are:

Name Value Reference
------------------- ------- ---------
SHA-1_0hash2bits 000 [RFC3972]
SHA-1_16hash2bits 001 [RFC3972]
SHA-1_32hash2bits 010 [RFC3972]

Future values are to be registered via through Standards Action.

IANA understands that this is the only action required upon approval
of this  document.

  (1.a) 
    (1.a.i) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

        James Kempf, kempf@docomolabs-usa.com

    (1.a.ii) Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version
        of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Yes.

  (1.b) 
    (1.b.i) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members? 

        This document is not a product of a WG. It has been reviewed by
        Christian Vogt, Pekka Nikander, and Henrik Levkowetz.

    (1.b.ii) Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth
        or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

        No.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
        AAA, internationalization or XML?

        No.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
        and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
        or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
        has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
        event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
        that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
        concerns here.

        No.

  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
        agree with it?

        This document is not a product of a WG.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
        should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
        entered into the ID Tracker.)

        No.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
        http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
        http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

        Yes. Idnits shows no issues.

    (1.h) 
    (1.h.i) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative?

        Yes.

    (1.h.ii) Are there normative references to documents that
        are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
        state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
        strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
        so, list these downward references to support the Area
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

No.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
        procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggested a
        reasonable name for the new registry?  See
        [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  If the document
        describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with
        the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the
        needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

        There is an IANA Considerations section, it does request a
        new registry, and the proposal seems consistent with RFC2424bis.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
        an automated checker?

        There are none.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
        Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
        Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
        "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
        announcement contains the following sections:

        Here is the document summary:

          Technical Summary
            This document analyzes the implications of recent attacks on
            commonly used hash functions on Cryptographically Generated
            Addresses (CGAs) and updates RFC 3972 to support multiple
            hash algorithms. An IANA registry is established to register
            hash functions for CGAs.

          Working Group Summary
            This document is not a product of a Working Group.

          Document Quality
    Since the protocol described in the document is designed
            to "future-proof" CGAs against attacks that have not yet
            occured, it has not yet been deployed. It depends on a new
            IANA registry being established and will require simple
            modifications to the SEND protocol.

          Personnel
    PROTO-shepherd: James Kempf (kempf@docomolabs-usa)
    Responsible AD: Russ Housley (housley@vigilsec.com)