Skip to main content

Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)
draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-ah-algorithms-02

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
02 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Thomas Narten
2005-01-03
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2004-12-23
02 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2004-12-23
02 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2004-12-23
02 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2004-12-22
02 Russ Housley State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup by Russ Housley
2004-08-24
02 Russ Housley State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Russ Housley
2004-08-24
02 Russ Housley This document ias approved.  It should not be publlished until draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-v3 and draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis are also approved.  Hopefully, this document will not be waiting long.
2004-08-24
02 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] Position for Thomas Narten has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Thomas Narten
2004-08-23
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-ah-algorithms-02.txt
2004-08-20
02 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-08-19
2004-08-19
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2004-08-19
02 Thomas Narten
[Ballot comment]
s/IPSEC/IPsec/ throughout.

s/mandatory to implement algorithms/mandatory-to-implement algorithms/

>                a MAY or worse in a future version …
[Ballot comment]
s/IPSEC/IPsec/ throughout.

s/mandatory to implement algorithms/mandatory-to-implement algorithms/

>                a MAY or worse in a future version of this document.

s/or worse/or weaker/ ??

4 normative references to IDs; are those IDs done?
2004-08-19
02 Thomas Narten
[Ballot discuss]
It would be good to include a paragraph in the introduction saying
"what's changed" relative to existing IPsec RFCs. I.e., this document
presumably …
[Ballot discuss]
It would be good to include a paragraph in the introduction saying
"what's changed" relative to existing IPsec RFCs. I.e., this document
presumably updates earlier recommendations and some transforms that
were previously recommended are no longer recommended. It would be
good to explicitely state what is being deprecated/phased out. Also,
this document should presumably say it "updates" (obsoletes?) some
previous RFCs (and list them).
2004-08-19
02 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] Position for Thomas Narten has been changed to Discuss from Undefined by Thomas Narten
2004-08-19
02 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] Position for Margaret Wasserman has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Margaret Wasserman
2004-08-19
02 Thomas Narten
[Ballot comment]
It might be good to include a paragraph in the introduction saying
"what's changed". I.e., this document presumably updates earlier
recommendations. It might …
[Ballot comment]
It might be good to include a paragraph in the introduction saying
"what's changed". I.e., this document presumably updates earlier
recommendations. It might be good explicitely say what is being
deprecated/phased out.

s/IPSEC/IPsec/ throughout.

s/mandatory to implement algorithms/mandatory-to-implement algorithms/

>                a MAY or worse in a future version of this document.

s/or worse/or weaker/ ??

4 normative references to IDs; are those IDs done?
2004-08-19
02 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Thomas Narten by Thomas Narten
2004-08-19
02 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens
2004-08-19
02 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen
2004-08-19
02 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin
2004-08-19
02 Harald Alvestrand
[Ballot comment]
Reviewed by Brian Carpenter, Gen-ART
Personally, I think the use of SHOULD+ and MUST- are good additions to the repertoire of "conformance verbs". …
[Ballot comment]
Reviewed by Brian Carpenter, Gen-ART
Personally, I think the use of SHOULD+ and MUST- are good additions to the repertoire of "conformance verbs". My preference would be to have the document mention an expected date for the conformance change (like "the first version emitted after January 2006, unless we learn something new"), but I can easily live with the document as written.
2004-08-19
02 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand
2004-08-18
02 Margaret Cullen
[Ballot comment]
Ideally the mandatory to implement algorithm of tomorrow should
  already be available in most implementations of IPSEC by the time it
  …
[Ballot comment]
Ideally the mandatory to implement algorithm of tomorrow should
  already be available in most implementations of IPSEC by the time it
  is made mandatory.

s/IPSEC/IPsec

If the security folks can't get this right, how can we expect the rest of us to do so?  :-)
2004-08-18
02 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman
2004-08-18
02 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner
2004-08-16
02 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson
2004-08-16
02 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie
2004-08-14
02 Steven Bellovin
[Ballot comment]
3.1.1 is actually rather odd -- there are no mandated confidentiality algorithms defined that are both required today and expected to be required …
[Ballot comment]
3.1.1 is actually rather odd -- there are no mandated confidentiality algorithms defined that are both required today and expected to be required in the near future.
2004-08-14
02 Steven Bellovin [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Steve Bellovin by Steve Bellovin
2004-07-19
02 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck
2004-07-18
02 Russ Housley Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-08-19 by Russ Housley
2004-07-18
02 Russ Housley State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Russ Housley
2004-07-18
02 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Russ Housley
2004-07-18
02 Russ Housley Ballot has been issued by Russ Housley
2004-07-18
02 Russ Housley Created "Approve" ballot
2004-07-16
02 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2004-07-08
02 Michelle Cotton IANA Last Call Comments:
We understand this document to have NO IANA Actions.
2004-06-23
02 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2004-06-23
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2004-06-23
02 Russ Housley State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Russ Housley
2004-06-23
02 Russ Housley Last Call was requested by Russ Housley
2004-06-23
02 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2004-06-23
02 (System) Last call text was added
2004-06-23
02 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2004-05-26
02 Russ Housley State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Russ Housley
2004-05-20
02 Russ Housley Draft Added by Russ Housley
2004-01-13
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-ah-algorithms-01.txt
2003-12-18
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-ah-algorithms-00.txt