Skip to main content

Guidelines for Cryptographic Key Management
draft-bellovin-mandate-keymgmt-03

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2005-02-24
03 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2005-02-21
03 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2005-02-21
03 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2005-02-21
03 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2005-02-18
03 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2005-02-17
2005-02-17
03 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2005-02-17
03 Sam Hartman Status date has been changed to 2005-02-17 from
2005-02-17
03 Sam Hartman [Note]: 'rfc-editor note entered and correct' added by Sam Hartman
2005-02-17
03 Thomas Narten
[Ballot comment]
> 2.2. Manual Key Management
>
>    Manual key management is a reasonable approach in any of these
>    situations:

should …
[Ballot comment]
> 2.2. Manual Key Management
>
>    Manual key management is a reasonable approach in any of these
>    situations:

should we s/is a/may be a/?

My concern is that the first example "limited bandwidth" is something
I hear a lot about, and I don't want folk to be able to say "see, this
document says we're a special case"
2005-02-17
03 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Thomas Narten by Thomas Narten
2005-02-17
03 Michelle Cotton IANA Comments:
We understand this document to have NO IANA Actions.
2005-02-17
03 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie
2005-02-17
03 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Allison Mankin
2005-02-17
03 Allison Mankin
[Ballot comment]
Not a Discuss, but for a discussion at some point:

Is it possible to add to the reasons for not using automated key …
[Ballot comment]
Not a Discuss, but for a discussion at some point:

Is it possible to add to the reasons for not using automated key management that
an automated key management protocol is not available with suitable applicability
for the application environment?  (IKEv2 and IPSec are not ideal for every application
environment, but what other warm recommendation do we have for automated key
management for applications?)
2005-02-17
03 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin
2005-02-17
03 Harald Alvestrand
Review by Scott Brim, Gen-ART

No serious objection, although here are some things you might consider.

- It lacks an IANA Considerations section.

- "There …
Review by Scott Brim, Gen-ART

No serious objection, although here are some things you might consider.

- It lacks an IANA Considerations section.

- "There is not one answer to that question; circumstances differ.  In
  general, automated key management SHOULD be used.  Occasionally,
  relying on manual key management is reasonable; we propose some
  guidelines for making that judgment."

  This is a BCP -- I hope you're doing more than "proposing" guidelines
  :-).  "provide"?  "offer"?

- "Manual key management is used to distribute such values."

  s/is/can be/ ?

- "In particular, the protocol associated with an automated key
  management technique will confirm liveness of the peer, protect
  against replay, ..."

  s/will/can/ ?

- "Examples of automated key management systems include IPsec IKE and
  Kerberos."

  add commas

- "In general, automated key management SHOULD be used to establish
  session keys.  This is a very strong "SHOULD", meaning the
  justification is needed in the security considerations section of a
  proposal that makes use of manual key management."

  Grades of SHOULD will be difficult to referee.  I suggest: "A proposal
  MUST use automated key management to establish session keys unless
  adequate justification is provided in the Security Considerations
  section for the use of manual key management."

- "When manual key management is used, long-term shared secrets MUST be
  unpredictable "random" values ..."

  I would take out "unpredictable".  First it's redundant with "random"
  and second we have the same problems generating unpredictable values
  as we do random ones.
2005-02-17
03 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot comment]
Reviewed by Scott Brim, Gen-ART
Some comments that may need addressing; full review in comment log.
2005-02-17
03 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand
2005-02-16
03 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner
2005-02-16
03 Alex Zinin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin
2005-02-16
03 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens
2005-02-16
03 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman
2005-02-14
03 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck
2005-02-11
03 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2005-02-11
03 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sam Hartman
2005-02-11
03 Sam Hartman Ballot has been issued by Sam Hartman
2005-02-11
03 Sam Hartman Created "Approve" ballot
2005-02-09
03 Sam Hartman Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-02-17 by Sam Hartman
2005-02-09
03 Sam Hartman State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Sam Hartman
2005-02-08
03 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2005-01-11
03 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2005-01-11
03 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2005-01-11
03 Sam Hartman Last Call was requested by Sam Hartman
2005-01-11
03 Sam Hartman State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Sam Hartman
2005-01-11
03 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2005-01-11
03 (System) Last call text was added
2005-01-11
03 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2005-01-11
03 (System) New version available: draft-bellovin-mandate-keymgmt-03.txt
2005-01-09
03 Sam Hartman State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Sam Hartman
2005-01-07
03 Sam Hartman Draft Added by Sam Hartman in state Publication Requested
2005-01-06
02 (System) New version available: draft-bellovin-mandate-keymgmt-02.txt
2004-10-19
01 (System) New version available: draft-bellovin-mandate-keymgmt-01.txt
2003-04-09
00 (System) New version available: draft-bellovin-mandate-keymgmt-00.txt