Deprecate Triple-DES (3DES) and RC4 in Kerberos
draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-10-31
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2018-07-24
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2018-07-03
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2018-05-29
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2018-05-25
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2018-05-25
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2018-05-25
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2018-05-25
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2018-05-25
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2018-05-25
|
05 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2018-05-25
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2018-05-25
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2018-05-25
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2018-05-25
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-05-25
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2018-05-25
|
05 | Eric Rescorla | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Publication Requested |
2018-05-19
|
05 | Eric Rescorla | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2018-05-18
|
05 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Sorry, for the late response! |
2018-05-18
|
05 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mirja Kühlewind has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2018-04-26
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2018-04-24
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2018-04-05
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2018-04-05
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2018-04-04
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2018-04-04
|
05 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. First, in the Kerberos Encryption Type Numbers registry on the Kerberos Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/kerberos-parameters/ Encryption types 1, 2, 3, and 24 are to be marked as deprecated and the reference is to be changed to RFC 6649. In addition, encryption types 5, 7, 16, and 23 are deprecated, with this [ RFC-to-be ] as the reference. Second, in the Kerberos Checksum Type Numbers registry also on the Kerberos Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/kerberos-parameters/ Checksum types 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 are to be deprecated, with RFC 6649 as the reference. In addition, checksum types 7, 12, and 13 are deprecated, with [ RFC-to-be ] as the reference. The IANA Services Operator understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2018-03-29
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tero Kivinen. |
2018-03-29
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
2018-03-29
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
2018-03-27
|
05 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-04-24): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: ekr@rtfm.com, draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die@ietf.org, Daniel Migault , curdle-chairs@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-04-24): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: ekr@rtfm.com, draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die@ietf.org, Daniel Migault , curdle-chairs@ietf.org, curdle@ietf.org, daniel.migault@ericsson.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Deprecate 3DES and RC4 in Kerberos) to Best Current Practice The IESG has received a request from the CURves, Deprecating and a Little more Encryption WG (curdle) to consider the following document: - 'Deprecate 3DES and RC4 in Kerberos' as Best Current Practice The Last Call for the document draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die is related to the status change document, also in Last Call, for status-change-kerberos-3des-rc4-to-historic. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-04-24. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The 3DES and RC4 encryption types are steadily weakening in cryptographic strength, and the deprecation process should be begun for their use in Kerberos. Accordingly, RFC 4757 is moved to Historic status, as none of the encryption types it specifies should be used, and RFC 3961 is updated to note the deprecation of the triple-DES encryption types. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. The document contains these normative downward references. See RFC 3967 for additional information: rfc3961: Encryption and Checksum Specifications for Kerberos 5 (Proposed Standard - IETF stream) rfc4120: The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5) (Proposed Standard - IETF stream) |
2018-03-27
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2018-03-27
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
2018-03-27
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was generated |
2018-02-24
|
05 | Eric Rescorla | Last call was requested |
2018-02-24
|
05 | Eric Rescorla | This needs another LC to coincide with the status request. Please issue after IETF 101 along with that. |
2018-02-24
|
05 | Eric Rescorla | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2017-09-20
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2017-09-18
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2017-09-18
|
05 | Benjamin Kaduk | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05.txt |
2017-09-18
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-09-18
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michiko Short , Benjamin Kaduk |
2017-09-18
|
05 | Benjamin Kaduk | Uploaded new revision |
2017-09-14
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2017-09-13
|
04 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2017-09-13
|
04 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2017-09-13
|
04 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2017-09-13
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2017-09-13
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] This document should formally Update rfc4120: Section 7 includes text which removes encryption/checksum mechanisms from it. |
2017-09-13
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2017-09-13
|
04 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] Although there is precedent for obsoleting a spec and making it historical at the same time, I agree with Mirja that it doesn't … [Ballot comment] Although there is precedent for obsoleting a spec and making it historical at the same time, I agree with Mirja that it doesn't seem to make sense in most cases. |
2017-09-13
|
04 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2017-09-12
|
04 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2017-09-12
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] I agree with Mirja that is seems more appropriate to move RFC4757 to historic. I'm guessing the choice for obsolete was because of … [Ballot comment] I agree with Mirja that is seems more appropriate to move RFC4757 to historic. I'm guessing the choice for obsolete was because of deprecating the algorithms used in the implementation. Thanks for your work on this draft. |
2017-09-12
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2017-09-12
|
04 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2017-09-12
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] I agree with Mirja's points about Obsoletes vs. Historic, and I didn't think we required a status change document for *all* move-to-Historic status … [Ballot comment] I agree with Mirja's points about Obsoletes vs. Historic, and I didn't think we required a status change document for *all* move-to-Historic status changes, but https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html says that we do. On the brighter side, that may be the best draft filename I've seen as an AD ... |
2017-09-12
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2017-09-11
|
04 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Thanks to Joel for his OpsDir review. I have a few comments / readability suggestions: 1: Section 5.1. Statistical Biases "These attacks seem … [Ballot comment] Thanks to Joel for his OpsDir review. I have a few comments / readability suggestions: 1: Section 5.1. Statistical Biases "These attacks seem to rely on repeated encryptions of thousands of copies of the same plaintext; " -- for a document which deprecates rc4-hmac the "seem to rely on" feels very weak. I'd suggest s/seem// or "At least some of these attacks rely on..." or similar. 2: Section 6. 3DES Weakness "Additionally, the 3DES encryption types were never implemented in all Kerberos implementations..." s/never/not/ 3: Section 6.3. Interoperability "The triple-DES encryption types were implemented by MIT Kerberos early in its development (ca. 1999) and present in the 1.2 release, but encryption types 17 and 18 (AES) were implemented by 2003 and present in the 1.3 release." I'm a bit confused by the "but" - should this be "and"? Otherwise it sounds like it it trying to contrast something. |
2017-09-11
|
04 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2017-09-11
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2017-09-04
|
04 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot discuss] This is mainly a processing question, so probably more for the IESG to discuss than the authors: I understand the intention of obsoleting … [Ballot discuss] This is mainly a processing question, so probably more for the IESG to discuss than the authors: I understand the intention of obsoleting RFC4757 to declare that the algorithms described should not be used anymore, however, rfc4757 is an informational implementation description which is probably still deployed. Obsoleting an informational implementation description seems a bit weird. Just would like to double-check with the rest of the IESG if that action appropriate...? Also obsoleting and moving to historic is not the same thing. The document says: "This document recommends the reclassification of [RFC4757] as Historic." One of the two actions (obsoleting or moving to historic) is enough. While I think moving to historic might actually be more appropriate than obsoleting an implementation description, it should only be moved to historic if this is not used and deployed anymore. Also moving to historic also requires a status change action. |
2017-09-04
|
04 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2017-08-22
|
04 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2017-08-18
|
04 | Eric Rescorla | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2017-08-18
|
04 | Eric Rescorla | Ballot has been issued |
2017-08-18
|
04 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
2017-08-18
|
04 | Eric Rescorla | Created "Approve" ballot |
2017-08-18
|
04 | Eric Rescorla | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-08-18
|
04 | Eric Rescorla | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-09-14 |
2017-08-03
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2017-07-30
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2017-07-30
|
04 | Benjamin Kaduk | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-04.txt |
2017-07-30
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-07-30
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michiko Short , Benjamin Kaduk |
2017-07-30
|
04 | Benjamin Kaduk | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-30
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2017-07-26
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2017-07-26
|
03 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. First, in the Kerberos Encryption Type Numbers registry on the Kerberos Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/kerberos-parameters/ Encryption types 1, 2, 3, and 24 are to be marked as deprecated and the reference is to be changed to RFC 6649. In addition, encryption types 5, 7, 16, and 23 are deprecated, with this [ RFC-to-be ] as the reference. Second, in the Kerberos Checksum Type Numbers registry also on the Kerberos Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/kerberos-parameters/ Checksum types 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 are to be deprecated, with RFC 6649 as the reference. In addition, checksum types 7, 12, and 13 are deprecated, with [ RFC-to-be ] as the reference. The IANA Services Operator understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Services Specialist PTI |
2017-07-20
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Daniel Gillmor |
2017-07-20
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Daniel Gillmor |
2017-07-20
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2017-07-20
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2017-07-17
|
03 | Joel Jaeggli | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joel Jaeggli. Sent review to list. |
2017-07-17
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli |
2017-07-17
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli |
2017-07-16
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2017-07-16
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-07-30): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: ekr@rtfm.com, draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die@ietf.org, Daniel Migault , curdle-chairs@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-07-30): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: ekr@rtfm.com, draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die@ietf.org, Daniel Migault , curdle-chairs@ietf.org, curdle@ietf.org, daniel.migault@ericsson.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Deprecate 3DES and RC4 in Kerberos) to Best Current Practice The IESG has received a request from the CURves, Deprecating and a Little more Encryption WG (curdle) to consider the following document: - 'Deprecate 3DES and RC4 in Kerberos' as Best Current Practice The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-07-30. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The 3DES and RC4 encryption types are steadily weakening in cryptographic strength, and the deprecation process should be begun for their use in Kerberos. Accordingly, RFC 4757 is moved to Obsolete status, as none of the encryption types it specifies should be used, and RFC 3961 is updated to note the deprecation of the triple-DES encryption types. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. The document contains these normative downward references. See RFC 3967 for additional information: rfc3961: Encryption and Checksum Specifications for Kerberos 5 (Proposed Standard - IETF stream) rfc4120: The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5) (Proposed Standard - IETF stream) |
2017-07-16
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2017-07-16
|
03 | Eric Rescorla | Last call was requested |
2017-07-16
|
03 | Eric Rescorla | Last call announcement was generated |
2017-07-16
|
03 | Eric Rescorla | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-07-16
|
03 | Eric Rescorla | Ballot writeup was generated |
2017-07-16
|
03 | Eric Rescorla | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2017-07-11
|
03 | Daniel Migault | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The target is BCP which is indicated in the header. According to RFC1818 BCP are used to publish relevant technical information endorsed by the IETF community. This document recommend not to use weak ciphers. This could fall under the BCP. In addition rfc6649 "Deprecate DES, RC4-HMAC-EXP, and Other Weak Cryptographic Algorithms in Kerberos" has BCP as a status. The draft updates RFC 3961 and obsoletes RFC 4757. This is mentioned in the header, abstract and introduction. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. The 3DES and RC4 encryption types are steadily weakening in cryptographic strength, and the deprecation process should be begun for their use in Kerberos. Accordingly, RFC 4757 is moved to Obsolete status, as none of the encryption types it specifies should be used, and RFC 3961 is updated to note the deprecation of the triple-DES encryption types. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No controversy. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? This does not apply here. My understanding is implementations are likely to implement the draft, especially with the "SHOULD NOT" recommendation. Both co-authors expect to start the deprecation process which is slow to achieve as there is now a long deployment history. A deprecation will not remove the actual software implementation right away, but progressively disable it. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Daniel Migault is the shepherd, Eric Rescola is the AD (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. The document has been written and supported by major implementations of Kerberos, and has benefited from a significant number of reviews. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. This does not apply here. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. I have no issue with the document. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Both co-authors state they are not aware of any IPR. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) 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? Yes. (10) 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 publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The latest version provides teh following nits: Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC4757, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC4757 though, so this could be OK. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3961, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC3961 though, so this could be OK. MGLT: This is OK, the abstract mentions: """Accordingly, RFC 4757 is moved to Obsolete status, as none of the encryption types it specifies should be used, and RFC 3961 is updated to note the deprecation of the triple-DES encryption types.""" This is probably due to the space between RFC and the number. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Using the creation date from RFC3961, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2004-02-11) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) MGLT: I do not think this applies here as well. There is no copy past from the pre-RFC5378 work. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This does not apply here. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) 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 plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. The current document obsoletes: 4757 and updates: 3961. This is mentioned in the abstract and in the header and the introduction. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The IANA section is consequent with body of the text. Encryption types 5, 7, 16, and 23 are deprecated, with this document as the reference. We checked with IANA whether the reference should be the reference introducing the registry entry or the one deprecating it. From there response, there is no specific rule for it. Having the reference deprecating the entry is fine. Note that the the IANA is also requested to update status checksum types 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 that are deprecated, with RFC 6649. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. Standards Action for standards-track RFCs; non-standards-track RFCs must be reviewed by an expert. The proposed expert is Ken Raeburn. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. This does not apply here. |
2017-07-11
|
03 | Daniel Migault | Responsible AD changed to Eric Rescorla |
2017-07-11
|
03 | Daniel Migault | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2017-07-11
|
03 | Daniel Migault | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2017-07-11
|
03 | Daniel Migault | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2017-07-11
|
03 | Daniel Migault | Changed document writeup |
2017-06-15
|
03 | Benjamin Kaduk | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-03.txt |
2017-06-15
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-06-15
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michiko Short , Benjamin Kaduk |
2017-06-15
|
03 | Benjamin Kaduk | Uploaded new revision |
2017-06-05
|
02 | Daniel Migault | Changed document writeup |
2017-06-05
|
02 | Daniel Migault | Changed document writeup |
2017-06-04
|
02 | Benjamin Kaduk | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-02.txt |
2017-06-04
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-06-04
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michiko Short , Benjamin Kaduk |
2017-06-04
|
02 | Benjamin Kaduk | Uploaded new revision |
2017-06-03
|
01 | Daniel Migault | Changed document writeup |
2017-06-03
|
01 | Daniel Migault | Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice from Proposed Standard |
2017-06-03
|
01 | Daniel Migault | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2017-06-03
|
01 | Daniel Migault | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2017-05-30
|
01 | Benjamin Kaduk | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-01.txt |
2017-05-30
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-05-30
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michiko Short , Benjamin Kaduk |
2017-05-30
|
01 | Benjamin Kaduk | Uploaded new revision |
2017-05-26
|
00 | Daniel Migault | Changed document writeup |
2017-05-19
|
00 | Daniel Migault | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2017-05-17
|
00 | Daniel Migault | Changed document writeup |
2017-05-17
|
00 | Daniel Migault | Notification list changed to Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com> |
2017-05-17
|
00 | Daniel Migault | Document shepherd changed to Daniel Migault |
2017-05-02
|
00 | Benjamin Kaduk | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-00.txt |
2017-05-02
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2017-05-01
|
00 | Benjamin Kaduk | Set submitter to "Benjamin Kaduk ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: curdle-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-05-01
|
00 | Benjamin Kaduk | Uploaded new revision |