Use of RSA Keys with SHA-256 and SHA-512 in the Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol
draft-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2-12
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-03-19
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2018-02-12
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2018-02-12
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2018-01-04
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2018-01-04
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2018-01-03
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2018-01-02
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2018-01-02
|
12 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2018-01-02
|
12 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2018-01-02
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2018-01-01
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2018-01-01
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2018-01-01
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2018-01-01
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-01-01
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-12-28
|
12 | Eric Rescorla | This looks good to go. |
2017-12-28
|
12 | Eric Rescorla | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2017-10-23
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Telechat review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2017-10-12
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2017-10-12
|
12 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2017-10-12
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2017-10-12
|
12 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2017-10-12
|
12 | denis bider | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2-12.txt |
2017-10-12
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-12
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: denis bider |
2017-10-12
|
12 | denis bider | Uploaded new revision |
2017-10-11
|
11 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing the SecDir review comments. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/ObNBH1VK1aPmdid3StYKLooa4Ls |
2017-10-11
|
11 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2017-10-11
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2017-10-11
|
11 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2017-10-10
|
11 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] [EXT-INFO] needs to be a normative reference, since it's part of a SHOULD level normative requirement. |
2017-10-10
|
11 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2017-10-10
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2017-10-10
|
11 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2017-10-10
|
11 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] Section 3.2: The signature field, if present, encodes a signature using an algorithm name that MUST match the SSH authentication request … [Ballot comment] Section 3.2: The signature field, if present, encodes a signature using an algorithm name that MUST match the SSH authentication request - either "rsa-sha2-256", or "rsa-sha2-512". It might be that I'm not familiar enough with SSH to know what recipients do when receiving unexpected values and the the proper behavior here would be obvious to implementors. If that's not the case, I would think that additional text here telling recipients what to do in the case of a mismatch would be helpful. The reference [EXT-INFO] needs to be normative rather than informative, as it is part of a normative behavior described in this document. Both section 1 and Section 5.1 describe NIST recommendations regarding key length, while not endorsing them (normatively or otherwise). This strikes me as notable, given that the NIST recommendations regarding SHA-1 seem to form part of the rationale for its replacement. Is the lack of endorsing NIST-recommended key lengths intentional? Nits: RFC6979 is in the references section, but does not appear to be referenced. One of the lines in the Acknowledgements section is too long. |
2017-10-10
|
11 | Adam Roach | Ballot comment text updated for Adam Roach |
2017-10-10
|
11 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] Section 3.2: The signature field, if present, encodes a signature using an algorithm name that MUST match the SSH authentication request … [Ballot comment] Section 3.2: The signature field, if present, encodes a signature using an algorithm name that MUST match the SSH authentication request - either "rsa-sha2-256", or "rsa-sha2-512". It might be that I'm not familiar enough with SSH to know what recipients do when receiving unexpected values and the the proper behavior here would be obvious to implementors. If that's not the case, I would think that additional text here telling recipients what to do in the case of a mismatch would be helpful. The reference [EXT-INFO] needs to be normative rather than informative, as it is part of a normative behavior described in this document. Both section 1 and Section 5.1 describe NIST recommendations regarding key length, while not endorsing them (normatively or otherwise). This seems odd, given that the NIST recommendations regarding SHA-1 seem to form part of the rationale for its replacement. Is the lack of endorsing NIST-recommended key lengths intentional? Nits: RFC6979 is in the references section, but does not appear to be referenced. One of the lines in the Acknowledgements section is too long. |
2017-10-10
|
11 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2017-10-10
|
11 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2017-10-10
|
11 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] There are a few outstanding comments from the Gen-ART review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2-10-genart-lc-housley-2017-09-01/ I personally do not have strong feelings about the title and the … [Ballot comment] There are a few outstanding comments from the Gen-ART review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2-10-genart-lc-housley-2017-09-01/ I personally do not have strong feelings about the title and the text in Section 3.1 but the review comments should be resolved by the author/WG. |
2017-10-10
|
11 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot comment text updated for Alissa Cooper |
2017-10-10
|
11 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2017-10-08
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2017-10-06
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2017-10-06
|
11 | denis bider | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2-11.txt |
2017-10-06
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-06
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: denis bider |
2017-10-06
|
11 | denis bider | Uploaded new revision |
2017-10-05
|
10 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2017-10-05
|
10 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2017-10-05
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Vincent Roca. |
2017-09-26
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
2017-09-26
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
2017-09-23
|
10 | Eric Rescorla | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-10-12 |
2017-09-23
|
10 | Eric Rescorla | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2017-09-23
|
10 | Eric Rescorla | Ballot has been issued |
2017-09-23
|
10 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
2017-09-23
|
10 | Eric Rescorla | Created "Approve" ballot |
2017-09-23
|
10 | Eric Rescorla | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-09-20
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2017-09-11
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2017-09-08
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2017-09-08
|
10 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2-10. 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-rsa-sha2-10. 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 Public Key Algorithm Names registry on the Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters/ to the immediate right of the column Public Key Algorithm Name, a new column is to be added, titled Public Key Format. For all of the existing entries, the column Public Key Format will be assigned the same value found under Public Key Algorithm Name. Second, also in the Public Key Algorithm Names registry on the Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters/ Immediately following the existing entry for "ssh-rsa", two sibling entries are to be added as follows: Public Key Algorithm Name: rsa-sha2-256 Public Key Format: ssh-rsa Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Note: Section 3 Public Key Algorithm Name: rsa-sha2-512 Public Key Format: ssh-rsa Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Note: Section 3 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 |
2017-09-01
|
10 | Russ Housley | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Russ Housley. Sent review to list. |
2017-08-31
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Vincent Roca |
2017-08-31
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Vincent Roca |
2017-08-31
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2017-08-31
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2017-08-29
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt |
2017-08-29
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt |
2017-08-28
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2017-08-28
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-09-11): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: ekr@rtfm.com, Daniel Migault , curdle-chairs@ietf.org, curdle@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-09-11): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: ekr@rtfm.com, Daniel Migault , curdle-chairs@ietf.org, curdle@ietf.org, daniel.migault@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Use of RSA Keys with SHA-2 256 and 512 in Secure Shell (SSH)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the CURves, Deprecating and a Little more Encryption WG (curdle) to consider the following document: - 'Use of RSA Keys with SHA-2 256 and 512 in Secure Shell (SSH)' as Proposed Standard 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 2017-09-11. 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 This memo updates RFC 4252 and RFC 4253 to define new public key algorithms for use of RSA keys with SHA-2 hashing for server and client authentication in SSH connections. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2017-08-28
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2017-08-28
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Last call announcement was generated |
2017-08-26
|
10 | Eric Rescorla | Last call was requested |
2017-08-26
|
10 | Eric Rescorla | Last call announcement was generated |
2017-08-26
|
10 | Eric Rescorla | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-08-26
|
10 | Eric Rescorla | Ballot writeup was generated |
2017-08-26
|
10 | Eric Rescorla | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2017-08-26
|
10 | Eric Rescorla | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested::AD Followup |
2017-08-22
|
10 | denis bider | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2-10.txt |
2017-08-22
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-08-22
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: denis bider |
2017-08-22
|
10 | denis bider | Uploaded new revision |
2017-06-19
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2017-06-19
|
09 | denis bider | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2-09.txt |
2017-06-19
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-06-19
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: denis bider |
2017-06-19
|
09 | denis bider | Uploaded new revision |
2017-06-17
|
08 | Eric Rescorla | IESG state changed to Publication Requested::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2017-06-17
|
08 | Eric Rescorla | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2017-06-02
|
08 | 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? This memo updates RFC 4252 and RFC 4253 to define new public key algorithms for use of RSA keys with SHA-2 hashing for server and client authentication in SSH connections. This justify a standard track document, as it is required to provide inter-operability. This is indicated in the header. (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. This memo updates RFC 4252 and RFC 4253 to define new public key algorithms for use of RSA keys with SHA-2 hashing for server and client authentication in SSH connections. 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? One discussion point concerned the use of PSS signature. The WG consensus was that they were no plan to implement this, while pkcs1v1.5 does not present major flows, As a result, it was agreed to stay with pkcs1v1.5 for now. This has been clearly explained in section 5.3. Another discussion was related to draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ext-info and interoperability between SSH implementation with that latest extension. The discussion is somehow unrelated to this draft except that the draft recommends the use of this extension so the client knows in advance the server supports the rsa-sha2-* public key algorithms. The motivation is that some servers implements a penalties when client use non supported public key algorithms. I do not think the discussion affects the current draft as: * the current draft only provides a recommendation of using draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ext-info. * the current draft provides alternatives ( no penalties, using the new algorithms as default, ...). * the draft comments the transition to the new algorithms in section 5.2. Note that Romen the implementer of PKIX-SSH raised the draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ext-info issue and implement the current draft using the defined algorithms as default. (cf. release note of "25 Mar 2017 : Version x509-10.1" . """ new RSA key algorithms This version supports new public key algorithms: rsa-sha2-256 (default) and rsa-sha2-512. Client and agent will use them only if server announce them in one of extensions mentioned above. """ I also believe we have found consensus on the draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ext-info draft. [1] http://roumenpetrov.info/secsh/index.html 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? From the non up-to-date SSH implementation comparison [1], as well from the author/implementer of the draft that the following SSH implementations implement the draft: - Bitvise SSH Server and Client - OpenSSH - AsyncSSH - SmartFTP In addition, Romen the implementer of PKIX-SSH provided significant clarification of the document and the release note of "25 Mar 2017 : Version x509-10.1" suggests PKIX-SSH supports the current draft. [1] http://ssh-comparison.quendi.de/comparison/hostkey.html [2] http://roumenpetrov.info/secsh/index.html Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Daniel Migault is the document shepherd and Eric Rescola is the Security Area Director. (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. I reviewed the document. I think it is ready. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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. No. (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. This document does not have any concern. It defines new public key algorithms to enable RSA signature using SHA2 instead of SHA1. The only discussion was regarding the adoption of PSS or not. As no implementation of pss was planned, the WG consensus was to not consider these new schemes. (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. Denis Bider confirmed he is 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. (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? The draft had a few reviews from implementers. The working group believes the draft is ready for publication. (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 nits has one comment regarding the copyright section. This section is necessary as the current draft provides clarifying material from RFC 4253 published in January 2006. In case we have to remove this would not cause an issue. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. (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. The draft references as informative Bider, D., "Extension Negotiation in Secure Shell (SSH)" which will be submitted in parallel. So the RFC editor will be able to assign the appropriated RFC number. (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. RFCs 4252, 4253 are listed on the title page header, in the abstract, 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 clear. It is consistent with the current draft and references have been clearly identified. (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. The IANA section details how to update the Public Key Algorithm Names registry [2]. Registration requires the IETF consensus. There is no expert review. [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters/ssh-parameters.xhtml [2] https://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters/ssh-parameters.xhtml#ssh-parameters-19 (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. |
2017-06-02
|
08 | Daniel Migault | Responsible AD changed to Eric Rescorla |
2017-06-02
|
08 | Daniel Migault | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2017-06-02
|
08 | Daniel Migault | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2017-06-02
|
08 | Daniel Migault | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2017-06-02
|
08 | Daniel Migault | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2017-06-02
|
08 | Daniel Migault | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2017-06-01
|
08 | Daniel Migault | Changed document writeup |
2017-06-01
|
08 | Daniel Migault | Changed document writeup |
2017-05-30
|
08 | denis bider | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2-08.txt |
2017-05-30
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-05-30
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: curdle-chairs@ietf.org, denis bider |
2017-05-30
|
08 | denis bider | Uploaded new revision |
2017-05-26
|
07 | Daniel Migault | Changed document writeup |
2017-05-26
|
07 | Daniel Migault | Changed document writeup |
2017-05-26
|
07 | Daniel Migault | Changed document writeup |
2017-05-03
|
07 | denis bider | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2-07.txt |
2017-05-03
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-05-03
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: curdle-chairs@ietf.org, denis bider |
2017-05-03
|
07 | denis bider | Uploaded new revision |
2017-04-24
|
06 | denis bider | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2-06.txt |
2017-04-24
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-04-24
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: curdle-chairs@ietf.org, denis bider |
2017-04-24
|
06 | denis bider | Uploaded new revision |
2017-04-08
|
05 | denis bider | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2-05.txt |
2017-04-08
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-04-08
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: curdle-chairs@ietf.org, denis bider |
2017-04-08
|
05 | denis bider | Uploaded new revision |
2017-04-07
|
04 | Daniel Migault | Changed document writeup |
2017-04-07
|
04 | Daniel Migault | Notification list changed to Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com> |
2017-04-07
|
04 | Daniel Migault | Document shepherd changed to Daniel Migault |
2017-03-29
|
04 | denis bider | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2-04.txt |
2017-03-29
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-03-29
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: curdle-chairs@ietf.org, denis bider |
2017-03-29
|
04 | denis bider | Uploaded new revision |
2017-03-27
|
03 | Daniel Migault | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2017-02-27
|
03 | denis bider | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2-03.txt |
2017-02-27
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-27
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: curdle-chairs@ietf.org, denis bider |
2017-02-27
|
03 | denis bider | Uploaded new revision |
2016-09-12
|
02 | denis bider | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2-02.txt |
2016-09-12
|
02 | denis bider | New version approved |
2016-09-12
|
02 | denis bider | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: curdle-chairs@ietf.org, "denis bider" |
2016-09-12
|
02 | (System) | Uploaded new revision |
2016-08-01
|
01 | denis bider | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2-01.txt |
2016-03-10
|
00 | Rich Salz | This document now replaces draft-rsa-dsa-sha2-256 instead of None |
2016-03-10
|
00 | denis bider | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rsa-sha2-00.txt |