Skip to main content

Encryption Key Derivation in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) using HKDF with SHA-256
draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256-05

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256@ietf.org, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, spasm@ietf.org, tim.hollebeek@digicert.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Encryption Key Derivation in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) using HKDF with SHA-256' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256-05.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Encryption Key Derivation in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
   using HKDF with SHA-256'
  (draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256-05.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX
and SMIME Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Paul Wouters and Deb Cooley.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document specifies the derivation of the content-encryption key
   or the content-authenticated-encryption key in the Cryptographic
   Message Syntax (CMS).  The use of this mechanism provides protection
   against where the attacker manipulates the content-encryption
   algorithm identifier or the content-authenticated-encryption
   algorithm identifier.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

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?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Tim Hollebeek. The
   Responsible Area Director is Deb Cooley.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note