Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

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 type of this RFC is Proposed Standard. This is appropriated as the document
updates RFC 7296 and obsoletes RFC 4307 which both are Standard Track. Also,
this document defines the current algorithm implementation requirements and
usage guidance for IKEv2, and does minor cleaning up of the IKEv2 IANA registry.

The type is indicated in the header, along with the RFCs the document updates
and obsoletes.

(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 IPsec series of protocols makes use of various cryptographic algorithms in
order to provide security services.  The Internet Key Exchange (IKE) protocol
is used to negotiate the IPsec Security Association (IPsec SA) parameters, such
as which algorithms should be used.  To ensure interoperability between
different implementations, it is necessary to specify a set of algorithm
implementation requirements and usage guidance to ensure that there is at least
one algorithm that all implementations support.

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

The draft had no controversy. The draft has been discussed frequently on the
mailing list and a lot of comments have been provided on list by people other
than the authors. In addition to mailing list discussions, the draft has been
presented and discussed during IETF meetings: bikeshed in Yokohama (IETF95),
presented at Buenos Aires (IETF96), and at Berlin (IETF96).

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?

The document is supported by vendors, and authors also represent a subset of


  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

  The Document Shepherd is David Waltermire. The responsible Area Director is
  Kathleen Moriarty.

(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.

The document shepherd has completely reviewed this draft to include review of
idnits, the references, and IANA considerations sections. No issues have been
found. The document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document had a significant number of reviews/comments during the multiple
iterations. The document Shepherd believes the document has been carefully

(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.


(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.

   The document updates the cryptographic suites to be implemented by IKEv2
   implementations. The document Shepherd has 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.

The authors confirm there is no IPR disclosure needed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

There is no related IPR disclosures for this document, or the prior document,

(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 document has been heavily discussed and reviewed by the WG, and has been
presented during the IETF meetings. There has been a significant number of
comments on the draft, which have been suffeciently addressed by the authors.
The document represents the strong consensus of the WG.

(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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

No error is raised.

The following waring was raised:

  == Missing Reference: 'RFCXXXX' is mentioned on line 679, but not
'27     ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_16  [RFC5529][RFCXXXX]  -...'

where RFCXXXX will be replaced by the assigned RFC number of the document.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document does not need external formal reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?


(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?


(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.


(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.

This document updates RFC 7296 and obsoletes RFC 4307 in defining the current
algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance for IKEv2, and does
minor cleaning up of the IKEv2 IANA registry.

(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 asks to rename some cryptographic suite in order to maintain a
more coherent designation for the cryptographic suite. As this names are
changes by this document and these suites can be used in bot IKEv2 and ESP, the
current document also needs to be reference.

     | Old name                              | New name             |
     | AES-GCM with a 8 octet ICV            | ENCR_AES_GCM_8       |
     | AES-GCM with a 12 octet ICV           | ENCR_AES_GCM_12      |
     | AES-GCM with a 16 octet ICV           | ENCR_AES_GCM_16      |
     | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM with an 8-octet ICV | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_8  |
     | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM with a 12-octet ICV | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_12 |
     | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM with a 16-octet ICV | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_16 |

(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.
mentions Tero Kivinen as the expert.

(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.

There is no need to proceed to further checks.