BGPsec Algorithms, Key Formats, and Signature Formats
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-18
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-06-16
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-06-14
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-06-07
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2017-06-02
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2017-04-27
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2017-04-02
|
18 | Sean Turner | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-18.txt |
2017-04-02
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-04-02
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sean Turner , Oliver Borchert |
2017-04-02
|
18 | Sean Turner | Uploaded new revision |
2017-03-16
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2017-03-16
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2017-03-16
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2017-03-16
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2017-03-16
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2017-03-16
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2017-03-08
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2017-03-08
|
17 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2017-03-08
|
17 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2017-03-08
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2017-03-08
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2017-03-08
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2017-03-08
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2017-03-08
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-03-08
|
17 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2017-03-08
|
17 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-03-06
|
17 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2017-03-06
|
17 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2017-03-06
|
17 | Sean Turner | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-17.txt |
2017-03-06
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-03-06
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sean Turner , sidr-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-03-06
|
17 | Sean Turner | Uploaded new revision |
2017-01-05
|
16 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-12-15
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-12-15
|
16 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-12-14
|
16 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-12-14
|
16 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-12-14
|
16 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-12-14
|
16 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-12-14
|
16 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-12-13
|
16 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-12-13
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-12-13
|
16 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for your work on this and it's good to hear there are interoperable implementations (after reading the responses to other comments). |
2016-12-13
|
16 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-12-13
|
16 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - As Randy commented, if the goal is to smallerise the packets, it'd have been nice to use eddsa here but I assume … [Ballot comment] - As Randy commented, if the goal is to smallerise the packets, it'd have been nice to use eddsa here but I assume that wasn't practical due to the timing and the number of RPKI elements that'd need to be defined for that? Is that right? Did the WG consider using 25519 instead of p256? If not, is it worth asking, just in case everyone loves the idea more than this? - Documents like this are better with test vectors included or referenced. Couldn't you add those or some pointers to those? - To answer Mirja's point: Anyone who knows RFC6090 knows that it more or less only exists because of IPR silliness. And sadly, even though 6090 only references documents that predate relevant IPR filings by >20 years, even 6090 still got an (IMO also silly) IPR declaration. [1] Sheesh, but whaddya gonna do? :-( Anyway, I don't think there's a need to, or benefit from, adding text here about the well-known situation with ECC IPR that I believe stymied deployment for at least a decade. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?rfc=6090&submit=rfc |
2016-12-13
|
16 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-12-12
|
16 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] As noted by Jouni in his OPS DIR review, and acknowledged by Sean Turner > o Section 7 IANA Considerations says on line … [Ballot comment] As noted by Jouni in his OPS DIR review, and acknowledged by Sean Turner > o Section 7 IANA Considerations says on line 192: > "Infrastructure (RPKI) group. The one-octet BGPsec Algorithm Suite” > ^^^^^^^^^ > However, in the following table and text it says nothing about > values 0x10-0xff. Are these unassigned or reserved? This is a bit > confusing since the table lists values up to 0xF (one-nibble). Sigh - that should be: +------------+------------+-------------+---------------------+ | 0x2-0xEF | Unassigned | Unassigned | This draft | +------------+------------+-------------+---------------------+ | 0xFF | Reserved | Reserved | This draft | +------------+------------+-------------+---------------------+ |
2016-12-12
|
16 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-12-12
|
16 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Just a thought: Would it be useful to add an IESG note saying something like in the sheperd write-up: "[...] there are published … [Ballot comment] Just a thought: Would it be useful to add an IESG note saying something like in the sheperd write-up: "[...] there are published references that preceded the filing of the patent, especially those mentioned in RFC6090. RFC6090 notes that its descriptions "may be useful for implementing the fundamental algorithms without using any of the specialized methods that were developed in following years."" I know we usuall don't do things like this. But I'm wondering how someone who wants to implement this should figure this out otherwise....? |
2016-12-12
|
16 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-12-10
|
16 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] Maybe I missed it, but I don't think the document is clear on why new algorithms are needed. Is this specified in one … [Ballot comment] Maybe I missed it, but I don't think the document is clear on why new algorithms are needed. Is this specified in one of referenced documents? |
2016-12-10
|
16 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-12-02
|
16 | Jouni Korhonen | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen. Sent review to list. |
2016-12-02
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2016-12-02
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2016-12-01
|
16 | Meral Shirazipour | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2016-11-30
|
16 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2016-11-30
|
16 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot has been issued |
2016-11-30
|
16 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-11-30
|
16 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-11-30
|
16 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-11-30
|
16 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-11-28
|
16 | Jouni Korhonen | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen. |
2016-11-28
|
16 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2016-11-26
|
16 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-11-26
|
16 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-15. 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-sidr-bgpsec-algs-15. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. A new registry is to be created called the BGPsec Algorithm Suite Registry. This new registry is to be a subregistry of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) registry located in: https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpki The new registry is to be managed via Standards Action as defined in RFC 5226. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows: Algorithm Suite Identifier Digest Algorithm Signature Algorithm Reference +------------+------------+-------------+---------------------+ | 0x0 | Reserved | Reserved | [ RFC-to-be ] | +------------+------------+-------------+---------------------+ | 0x1 | SHA-256 | ECDSA P-256 | [FIPS 180-4][FIPS 186-4][RFC6090] | +------------+------------+-------------+---------------------+ | 0x2-0xE | Unassigned | Unassigned | +------------+------------+-------------+---------------------+ | 0xF | Reserved | Reserved | [ RFC-to-be ] | +------------+------------+-------------+---------------------+ The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. 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 PTI |
2016-11-24
|
16 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Christopher Inacio. |
2016-11-13
|
16 | Sean Turner | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-16.txt |
2016-11-13
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-11-13
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: sidr-chairs@ietf.org, "Sean Turner" |
2016-11-13
|
16 | Sean Turner | Uploaded new revision |
2016-11-11
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2016-11-11
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2016-11-10
|
15 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Christopher Inacio |
2016-11-10
|
15 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Christopher Inacio |
2016-11-08
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2016-11-08
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2016-11-04
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-11-04
|
15 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs@ietf.org, sidr@ietf.org, "Sandra L. Murphy" , sidr-chairs@ietf.org, sandy@tislabs.com … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs@ietf.org, sidr@ietf.org, "Sandra L. Murphy" , sidr-chairs@ietf.org, sandy@tislabs.com, aretana@cisco.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (BGPsec Algorithms, Key Formats, & Signature Formats) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG (sidr) to consider the following document: - 'BGPsec Algorithms, Key Formats, & Signature Formats' as Proposed Standard 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 2016-11-28. 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 specifies the algorithms, algorithm parameters, asymmetric key formats, asymmetric key size and signature format used in BGPsec (Border Gateway Protocol Security). This document updates the Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for Use in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (ID.sidr-rfc6485bis). The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1965/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1967/ The document contains these normative downward references. See RFC 3967 for additional information: rfc6090: Fundamental Elliptic Curve Cryptography Algorithms (Informational - IETF stream) rfc2986: PKCS #10: Certification Request Syntax Specification Version 1.7 (Informational - Legacy stream) Note that both of these references may already be listed in the acceptable Downref Registry. (https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry) Also, the document contains these non-RFC normative references: [DSS] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce, "Digital Signature Standard", FIPS Publication 186-4, July 2013. [SHS] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce, "Secure Hash Standard", FIPS Publication 180-4, August 2015. |
2016-11-04
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-11-03
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | == AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-15 == Thanks for working on this document. I have some comments below, mostly minor. I will start the IETF Last … == AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-15 == Thanks for working on this document. I have some comments below, mostly minor. I will start the IETF Last Call shortly, but I would like to see an update before the IESG Telechat. Thanks! Alvaro. M. IANA Considerations: M1. “Assignments consist of a digest algorithm name, signature algorithm name, and the algorithm suite identifier value.” The request made to IANA in this registry would be for the Algorithm Suite Identifier, and not the Digest or Signature Algorithms, right? IOW, a request would be made for the ID given the suite that is to be registered. The text above gives the impression that IANA is to assign everything and not just the ID. Please clarify. M2. Please reorganize the registry table to list the Suite ID in the first column – this should help the readability. M3. Clearly, the TBD value is 0x1. Please call it out explicitly – and simply list the rest of the identifiers explicitly (0x2-0xE). The TBD value should be then explicitly mentioned in Section 2 (“…Algorithm Suite Identifier from Section 7…”). M4. [minor] “Future assignments are to be made using either the Standards Action process defined in [RFC5226], or the Early IANA Allocation process defined in [RFC7120].” The use of the early allocation process is a given based on the fact that Standards Action is the overall registration policy, so there’s no need to call rfc7120 out. Minor: P1. rfc6485bis is now rfc7935. |
2016-11-03
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-12-15 |
2016-11-03
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | Last call was requested |
2016-11-03
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-11-03
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-11-03
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2016-11-03
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was changed |
2016-11-03
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-11-03
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-11-03
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to "Sandra L. Murphy" <sandy@tislabs.com>, aretana@cisco.com from "Sandra L. Murphy" <sandy@tislabs.com> |
2016-11-03
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-06-24
|
15 | Sandra Murphy | 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 … 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 document is intended as a Standards Track RFC. The document adds an additional algorithm to the RPKI, updating RFC6485 (as recently updated). The algorithm defined in this document is used in BGPsec. At time of writing, there is an update to RFC6485 that has been approved for publication. RFC6485 and its update define algorithms that are used in RPKI for origin validation, where this document defines algorithms that are used in path validation by BGPsec. The title page says "Intended status: Standards Track". (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 specifies the algorithms, algorithm parameters, asymmetric key formats, asymmetric key size and signature format used in BGPsec (Border Gateway Protocol Security). This document updates the Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for Use in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis, recently approved for publication). Working Group Summary This document has had consistent interest from the working group. The document passed wglc and then waited for publication until the BGPsec protocol was mature. In the meantime, it absorbed some changes from rfc6485bis that were made during IESG consideration. Document Quality There is one known implementation of the generation of certificates that use the algorithm and key format defined in this draft. There are two known implementations of BGPsec that use the algorithms defined in this draft. All are open source implementations. Personnel Document Shepherd: Sandra Murphy Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana (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 reviewed the current document, and many previous versions over the course of its progress. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The shepherd has no concerns about the level of reviews. (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. There is no need for review from any particular or broader perspective. (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 shepherd has no concerns or issues with this document and saw no unaddressed concerns in the working group discussions. (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 confirmed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Two IPR disclosures have been filed against this draft by Certicom Corporation (the second is an update of the first). The filing declares that the Patent Holder will make a license available on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, under conditions of reciprocity, etc. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1965/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1967/ After the filing, the IPR was discussed at the IETF86 meeting. The meeting discussion mentioned that there are published references that preceded the filing of the patent, especially those mentioned in RFC6090. RFC6090 notes that its descriptions "may be useful for implementing the fundamental algorithms without using any of the specialized methods that were developed in following years." The working group had previously considered work that had IPR filings, and had concluded that this was not the desired path but was not forbidden. This was mentioned in the IETF86 discussion. (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 working group support for this work is solid. (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.) No one has threatened an appeal or expressed extreme discontent. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). The errors are downrefs to informational RFCs. One is RFC2986, which is an IETF re-publication of a document from outside the IETF. The other is to RFC6090, which is a list of references published outside the IETF. Both are properly Informational. Both are necessary to the document. (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 for this document. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references within this document have 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? All normative references in this document are RFCs or are permanently published outside the IETF. (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. See the discussion in question 11 of the two downward references to RFCs that are Informational: [RFC6090] McGrew, D., Igoe, K., and M. Salter, "Fundamental Elliptic Curve Cryptography Algorithms", RFC 6090, February 2011. [RFC2986] Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #10: Certification Request Syntax Specification Version 1.7", RFC 2986, November 2000. Both are RFCs that point to material published outside the IETF. (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. Publication of this document updates draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis, recently approved for publication. This is noted in the header, the abstract, and the introduction. draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis updates RFC6485. (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 requests the definition of a new registry, to be titled "BGPsec Algorithm Suite Registry", in the RPKI group. Algorithms used specifically for BGPsec will be registered in that registry. This document defines the initial contents of the registry, which are the algorithms defined in this document. It also defines how future registrations will be made - by either Standards Action or Early IANA process. The document also defines what future registrations must include - a digest algorithm name, a signature algorithm name, and an algorithms suite identifier. (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 new IANA registries are created by this document that require Expert Review. (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 are no sections of this document written in a formal language. |
2016-06-24
|
15 | Sandra Murphy | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2016-06-24
|
15 | Sandra Murphy | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-06-24
|
15 | Sandra Murphy | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-06-24
|
15 | Sandra Murphy | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-06-24
|
15 | Sandra Murphy | Tags Other - see Comment Log, Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC, Waiting for Referenced Document cleared. |
2016-06-24
|
15 | Sandra Murphy | Changed document writeup |
2016-04-21
|
15 | Sean Turner | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-15.txt |
2016-04-06
|
14 | Sandra Murphy | backfilling history: wglc was issued 16 October. Comments supported publication. However, this draft used the same Additional Requirements text from RFC6485 that troubled the IESG … backfilling history: wglc was issued 16 October. Comments supported publication. However, this draft used the same Additional Requirements text from RFC6485 that troubled the IESG during their draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis review. Progress of this draft was held up for wg resolution of the text of that section in a new version of rfc6485bis. The wg came to consensus on the new text for that section in draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis, so this draft is directed to adopt the same text. |
2016-04-06
|
14 | Sandra Murphy | Tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2016-04-06
|
14 | Sandra Murphy | Notification list changed to "Sandra L. Murphy" <sandy@tislabs.com> |
2016-04-06
|
14 | Sandra Murphy | Document shepherd changed to Sandra L. Murphy |
2016-04-06
|
14 | Sandra Murphy | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2016-04-06
|
14 | Sandra Murphy | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2016-04-06
|
14 | Sandra Murphy | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-04-06
|
14 | Sandra Murphy | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-11-10
|
14 | Sean Turner | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-14.txt |
2015-11-05
|
13 | Sean Turner | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-13.txt |
2015-11-02
|
12 | Sean Turner | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-12.txt |
2015-08-06
|
11 | Sean Turner | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-11.txt |
2015-07-20
|
10 | Sean Turner | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-10.txt |
2015-01-21
|
09 | Sean Turner | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-09.txt |
2014-07-25
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | Tag Waiting for Referenced Document set. |
2014-07-25
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | Tag Waiting for Referenced Document cleared. |
2014-07-25
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Document |
2014-07-25
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | Tag Waiting for Referenced Document set. Tag Waiting for Referencing Document cleared. |
2014-07-02
|
08 | Sean Turner | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-08.txt |
2014-07-02
|
07 | Sean Turner | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-07.txt |
2014-03-27
|
06 | Sean Turner | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-06.txt |
2014-03-03
|
05 | Sandra Murphy | Tag Waiting for Referencing Document set. Tag Waiting for Referenced Document cleared. |
2014-03-03
|
05 | Sandra Murphy | Tag Waiting for Referenced Document set. |
2013-09-17
|
05 | Sean Turner | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-05.txt |
2013-03-26
|
04 | Sean Turner | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-04.txt |
2013-02-20
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Certicom Corporation's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-03 | |
2013-02-19
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Certicom Corporation's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-03 | |
2012-09-24
|
03 | Sean Turner | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-03.txt |
2012-03-28
|
02 | Sean Turner | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-02.txt |
2012-03-28
|
01 | Chris Morrow | IETF state changed to WG Document from WG Document |
2011-12-05
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-01.txt |
2011-12-05
|
01 | Chris Morrow | Waiting for WGLC decision - authors + chairs |
2011-10-24
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-00.txt |