Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality
draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-01-30
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-01-25
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-01-13
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2017-01-10
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2016-12-02
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2016-11-07
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-11-03
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-11-02
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-10-31
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-10-28
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2016-10-28
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-10-28
|
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-10-28
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2016-10-28
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2016-10-28
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-10-28
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-10-28
|
10 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
2016-10-16
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2016-10-16
|
10 | Dino Farinacci | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-10.txt |
2016-10-16
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-16
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Brian Weis" , "Dino Farinacci" |
2016-10-16
|
10 | Dino Farinacci | Uploaded new revision |
2016-10-13
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-10-13
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Thanks for doing this. Great to see folks incorporating such things where we can and I'll be interested to see how the experiments … [Ballot comment] Thanks for doing this. Great to see folks incorporating such things where we can and I'll be interested to see how the experiments with this pan out. - intro: (nit) "PKI infrastructure" - the I in PKI already means infrastructure:-) - intro: (another nit) I don't get why " o Packet transport is optimized due to less packet headers. Packet loss is reduced by a more efficient key exchange." is true. - 3: (more nittyness:) AEAD is defined in RFC5116. - section 6 non-nit: I don't see why you want cipher suites 1, 2 and 4. The set of 3,5 and 6 seems to me like it'd be plenty. If it's not too late, I'd encourage you to either drop 1,2 and 4 or say those are OPTIONAL and 3,5 and 6 are RECOMMENDED. - section 7: I think you should embed the KDF into the cipher suite. It's ok to only have one KDF now, but later you may want others and it's fairly easy to include the KDF as part of the definition of the ciphersuite. - section 7: Why didn't you choose RFC 5869 for the KDF? That's a more accessible reference I think and just as good. |
2016-10-13
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-10-13
|
09 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] Thank you for this document. I would like to double check that I understand the document correctly. Is the following scenario possible: ITR … [Ballot comment] Thank you for this document. I would like to double check that I understand the document correctly. Is the following scenario possible: ITR requests negotiation of 3 keys, then in a later request ITR can request change to 1 (or 2) of the keys, while continuing to use the remaining keys? |
2016-10-13
|
09 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-10-13
|
09 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-10-13
|
09 | Pete Resnick | Request for Last Call review by GENART Rejected. Reviewer: Pete Resnick. |
2016-10-13
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-10-12
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] Susan Hares provided the opsdir review |
2016-10-12
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-10-12
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Susan Hares. |
2016-10-12
|
09 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-10-12
|
09 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-10-12
|
09 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-10-12
|
09 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-10-12
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for your work on this draft. I think the draft would read better if the content of the Abstract is repeated in … [Ballot comment] Thanks for your work on this draft. I think the draft would read better if the content of the Abstract is repeated in the introduction. If you read just the introduction, it is not clear what this draft is about, the abstract text is needed to have an understanding. In the introduction, I'm not sure what this means: Packets that arrive at the ITR or PITR are typically not modified, which means no protection or privacy of the data is added. Do you mean modified as in 'not encrypted' or something else? It would be easier to read if what you meant was clearly stated. It's followed by this sentence: If the source host encrypts the data stream then the encapsulated packets can be encrypted but would be redundant. But the introduction doesn't clearly say what this would be redundant to. Can you clarify this text too? Thanks for addressing the SecDir review. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06835.html |
2016-10-12
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-10-12
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2016-10-12
|
09 | Dino Farinacci | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-09.txt |
2016-10-12
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-12
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Brian Weis" , "Dino Farinacci" |
2016-10-12
|
09 | Dino Farinacci | Uploaded new revision |
2016-10-12
|
08 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Section 12.1 seems unnecessary. |
2016-10-12
|
08 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-10-11
|
08 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-10-10
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2016-10-07
|
08 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-10-06
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick |
2016-10-06
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick |
2016-10-05
|
08 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-10-04
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-10-04
|
08 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-07. 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-lisp-crypto-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. We have three questions about this document. Upon approval of this document, we understand that we have only one action to complete: the creation of a registry called "LISP Crypto Cipher Suite," which will be maintained via the First Come First Served registration procedure described in RFC 5226. These are the registry's initial contents: Value Suite Definition 0 Reserved [This document, Section 6] 1 LISP_2048MODP_AES128_CBC_SHA256 [This document, Section 6] 2 LISP_EC25519_AES128_CBC_SHA256 [This document, Section 6] 3 LISP_2048MODP_AES128_GCM [This document, Section 6] 4 LISP_3072MODP_AES128_GCM M-3072 [This document, Section 6] 5 LISP_256_EC25519_AES128_GCM [This document, Section 6] 6 LISP_256_EC25519_CHACHA20_POLY1305 [This document, Section 6] 7-255 (?) Unassigned QUESTION 1: http://www.iana.org/protocols lists a category called "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Parameters," currently consisting of three registries that are available at http://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters. Should this registry be created at that URL, in that category? QUESTION 2: Should the section numbers be included in the registry's reference field? QUESTION 3: Is the registry's maximum value 255? 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, Amanda Baber Lead IANA Services Specialist |
2016-10-04
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-10-04
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2016-10-03
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-10-03
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2016-10-03
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-10-03
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-10-03
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-09-29
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick. |
2016-09-27
|
08 | Dino Farinacci | New version approved |
2016-09-27
|
08 | Dino Farinacci | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-08.txt |
2016-09-27
|
08 | Dino Farinacci | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Brian Weis" , "Dino Farinacci" |
2016-09-27
|
08 | (System) | Uploaded new revision |
2016-09-22
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
2016-09-22
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
2016-09-22
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick |
2016-09-22
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick |
2016-09-21
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2016-09-21
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2016-09-21
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-10-13 |
2016-09-20
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-09-20
|
07 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-crypto@ietf.org, "Luigi Iannone" , ggx@gigix.net, db3546@att.com, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-crypto@ietf.org, "Luigi Iannone" , ggx@gigix.net, db3546@att.com, lisp@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (LISP Data-Plane Confidentiality) to Experimental RFC The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG (lisp) to consider the following document: - 'LISP Data-Plane Confidentiality' as Experimental RFC 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 2016-10-04. 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 document describes a mechanism for encrypting LISP encapsulated traffic. The design describes how key exchange is achieved using existing LISP control-plane mechanisms as well as how to secure the LISP data-plane from third-party surveillance attacks. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-crypto/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-crypto/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-09-20
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-09-20
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
2016-09-20
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-09-20
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-09-20
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review |
2016-09-20
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-09-19
|
07 | Dino Farinacci | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-07.txt |
2016-09-19
|
07 | Dino Farinacci | New version approved |
2016-09-19
|
07 | Dino Farinacci | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Brian Weis" , "Dino Farinacci" |
2016-09-19
|
07 | (System) | Uploaded new revision |
2016-08-25
|
06 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Danny McPherson. |
2016-08-01
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested |
2016-07-11
|
06 | Jonathan Hardwick | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to He Jia was rejected |
2016-07-11
|
06 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Danny McPherson |
2016-07-11
|
06 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Danny McPherson |
2016-07-11
|
06 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to He Jia |
2016-07-11
|
06 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to He Jia |
2016-07-05
|
06 | Luigi Iannone | draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-06.txt Document Write-up As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. (1) What type of RFC is … draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-06.txt Document Write-up As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. (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 draft is targeting publication as an Experimental RFC. It is the proper type of RFC since it adds encryption to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), whose RFCs have Experimental status. The RFC type is clearly marked in the title page 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: This document describes a mechanism for encrypting LISP encapsulated traffic. The design relies secret shared keys negotiated between the ITR and the ETR in Map-Request and Map-Reply messages. The ITR can compute 3 shared-secrets per ETR the ITR is encapsulating to. When the ITR encrypts a packet before encapsulation, it will identify, via two bits LISP-specific header, which key it used for encryption so the ETR knows which key to use for decrypting the packet after decapsulation. The use of key-ids nn the LISP header enables fast rekeying functionality. Encryption is unidirectional, meaning that bidirectional communications have separate key exchange on aper direction basis. Working Group Summary: The document filled a gap that the working group felt was important to address, namely confidentiality in the LISP data plane. Since the document was created on explicit request of the working group, it has received a strong support during its evolution. The version of the document that was approved during WG Last Call is -04. As a shepherd I required a few editorial changes to the document, in particular to the IANA section, which in -04 was not completely conform to RFC 5226. Then a couple of idnits needed to be cleared. This, -06 contains all the fixes. 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? On explicit request of the chairs, the authors have requested and obtained review and feedback from the Security Area Advisory Group (SAAG). There ate least one implementation of the proposed mechanism. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Luigi Iannone Who is the Responsible Area Director? Deborah Brungard . (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 carefully the document. The text is clear and understandable. On the document that past the WG Last Call I had some editorial changes. In particular the IANA considerations section was not conform to RFC 5226. Version -05 of the document addressed the issue. Version -06 was issued to fix some issues with the references and clear the idnits check. I have checked the mailinglist and meeting minutes and publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately. I checked the ID nits (output provided on point 11) and everything is clear. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? As the document shepherd I have no concerns. (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. The document has already been reviewed by SAAG, which was involved as soon as the document was adopted by the WG. (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. I have no specific concerns or issues to point out. (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? All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been filed. (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? There has been clear strong consensus behind this document, showing that the WG as a whole understand and agree with it. (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.) Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. idnits 2.14.01 tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-06.txt: Attempted to download rfc0002 state... Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it. Attempted to download rfc0100 state... Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it. Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document date (June 29, 2016) is 6 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review is required. (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? There are no normative references in unclear state. The [LCAF] has past WG Last Call and I am shepherding as well that document. So they are moving in parallel. (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. There are no downward normative references. (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. No existing RFC's status will change due to the publication of this document. (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). This document instruct IANA to create a new registry for the Cipher Suite value transported in the security material fo Map-Request and Map-Reply messages. The initial content of the newly created registry is well identified and allocations procedure is a simple First Come Fist Served policy. The registry is named “LISP Crypto Cipher Suite”, which concisely express its content. (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. No expert review is required. (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. The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence, no validation and/or check has been performed. |
2016-07-05
|
06 | Luigi Iannone | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2016-07-05
|
06 | Luigi Iannone | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-07-05
|
06 | Luigi Iannone | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-07-05
|
06 | Luigi Iannone | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-07-05
|
06 | Luigi Iannone | Intended Status changed to Experimental from None |
2016-07-05
|
06 | Luigi Iannone | Changed document writeup |
2016-06-29
|
06 | Dino Farinacci | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-06.txt |
2016-06-27
|
05 | Dino Farinacci | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-05.txt |
2016-05-31
|
04 | Dino Farinacci | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-04.txt |
2016-04-25
|
03 | Luigi Iannone | I forgot to put the document in WG last call state but the two weeks time have been respected. |
2016-04-25
|
03 | Luigi Iannone | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2016-04-25
|
03 | Luigi Iannone | Notification list changed to "Luigi Iannone" <ggx@gigix.net> |
2016-04-25
|
03 | Luigi Iannone | Document shepherd changed to Luigi Iannone |
2015-12-04
|
03 | Dino Farinacci | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-03.txt |
2015-09-12
|
02 | Dino Farinacci | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-02.txt |
2015-05-01
|
01 | Dino Farinacci | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-01.txt |
2015-01-16
|
00 | Luigi Iannone | This document now replaces draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto instead of None |
2015-01-12
|
00 | Dino Farinacci | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-00.txt |