Curve25519 and Curve448 for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) Key Agreement
draft-ietf-ipsecme-safecurves-05
Yes
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Ben Campbell)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Suresh Krishnan)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2016-10-13)
Unknown
- Wouldn't it be good to encourage minimising re-use of public values for multiple key exchanges? As-is, the text sort-of encourages use for "many key exchanges" in section 4. - Sorry if I'm forgetting how we handle this in IPsec, but is an implementation of this RFC expected to support both curves? I think it'd be ok to say that 25519 is a MUST for folks doing, this but that 448 is optional. I'm also fine if we mean that implementing this means you have to support both btw but you don't say (here) that that's the case.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown