Securing Block Storage Protocols over IP: RFC 3723 Requirements Update for IPsec v3
draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-03-28
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-02-19
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-02-10
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2014-02-10
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2013-12-02
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2013-12-02
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2013-12-02
|
04 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2013-11-27
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2013-11-27
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2013-11-27
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2013-11-27
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2013-11-27
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2013-11-27
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-11-27
|
04 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-11-27
|
04 | Martin Stiemerling | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2013-11-23
|
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2013-10-21
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-10-21
|
04 | David Black | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2013-10-21
|
04 | David Black | New version available: draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update-04.txt |
2013-08-29
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2013-08-29
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2013-08-28
|
03 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] I want to reiterate and amplify Joel's comment: I think it would be better in the end to re-publish 3723 with these changes … [Ballot comment] I want to reiterate and amplify Joel's comment: I think it would be better in the end to re-publish 3723 with these changes and obsolete it rather than doing this as an update. I hate for our tools to drive these sorts of decisions, but if you obsolete 3723 with a new document, the next time someone tries to refer to 3723, the nits tool will say, "Hey, that's obsoleted; do you want to refer to the newer one?" That won't happen if it's just an update. You still want to update all of the docs that normatively refers to the IPSec stuff in 3723, but obsoleting 3723 would be better. Please consider it. |
2013-08-28
|
03 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2013-08-28
|
03 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2013-08-28
|
03 | Francis Dupont | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont. |
2013-08-28
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-08-27
|
03 | Sean Turner | [Ballot discuss] BTW - this pretty closely mimics the "new" recommendations found in: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-esp-ah-reqts/ so no worries there. s2: The use of ESNs is discussed … [Ballot discuss] BTW - this pretty closely mimics the "new" recommendations found in: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-esp-ah-reqts/ so no worries there. s2: The use of ESNs is discussed for IPsec v3 but this feature is also supported in IPsec v2, see [RFC4304], should the same requirement be levied against implementations that use IPsec v2? s5: I agree with the Tom (the secdir reviewer) about the GCM nonce-reuse issue. There's motivation provided for changing and it seems like while touting how much better GCM is ought to also be balanced out with the nonce-reuse issue. pointing to the other security considerations is a good start, but also adding something along the following would do it: Of particular interest are the security considerations concerning the use of AES GCM [RFC4106]; AES in GCM mode is vulnerable to catastrophic forgery attacks if a nonce is ever repeated with a given key. s3.2: Any thought to also allowing AES-XCBC-PRF-128 [RFC4334] so that if an implementation wanted to be AES only that it could do so? |
2013-08-27
|
03 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] Like Spencer, I'd like to see the changes agreed by Tom and David to be incorporated, but I trust that the responsible AD … [Ballot comment] Like Spencer, I'd like to see the changes agreed by Tom and David to be incorporated, but I trust that the responsible AD will ensure that gets done so no need for me to hold a discuss on it. s2.2: I think you need to add normative references to [RFC3602] for AES-128-CBC: OLD: AES in CBC mode MUST be implemented. AES CBC implementations MUST support 128-bit keys and MAY support other key sizes. NEW: AES in CBC mode MUST be implemented [RFC3602]. AES CBC implementations MUST support 128-bit keys and MAY support other key sizes. s2.2: r/implement" requirement) ./implement" requirement). s2.2: r/AES in Counter mode MAY/AES in Counter mode (AES CTR) MAY s3: Maybe with more teeth: OLD: Use of 1024 bit D-H groups with 3DES CBC and HMAC- SHA1 is no longer recommended, NEW: Use of 1024 bit D-H groups with 3DES CBC and HMAC- SHA1 is NOT RECOMMENDED, s3: r/use of IPsec v3 is recommended./use of IPsec v3 is RECOMMENDED. ? s3.1: Is it worth mentioning the OCSP extension mechanism to check the validity of the certificates? |
2013-08-27
|
03 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-08-27
|
03 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] given the breadth of the changes, I'm not sure why this document doesn't simply obsolete 3723 supplanting it with 3723 text+updates rather than … [Ballot comment] given the breadth of the changes, I'm not sure why this document doesn't simply obsolete 3723 supplanting it with 3723 text+updates rather than simply enumerating the changes. |
2013-08-27
|
03 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2013-08-26
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] This has to be a record for the length of an "updates" list. Nice! |
2013-08-26
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-08-26
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] I think the resolutions David and Tom Yu arrived at while chatting about Tom's SECDIR review are helpful and support them being in … [Ballot comment] I think the resolutions David and Tom Yu arrived at while chatting about Tom's SECDIR review are helpful and support them being in the RFC. |
2013-08-26
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2013-08-25
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-08-22
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2013-08-22
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2013-08-22
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Tom Yu. |
2013-08-22
|
03 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2013-08-20
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-08-29 |
2013-08-20
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2013-08-20
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup |
2013-08-20
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot has been issued |
2013-08-20
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-08-20
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-08-20
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-08-19
|
03 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2013-08-15
|
03 | Francis Dupont | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont. |
2013-08-08
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2013-08-08
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2013-08-08
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-08-08
|
03 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2013-08-08
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2013-08-08
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2013-08-05
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2013-08-05
|
03 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Securing Block Storage Protocols over … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Securing Block Storage Protocols over IP: RFC 3723 Requirements Update for IPsec v3) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the STORage Maintenance WG (storm) to consider the following document: - 'Securing Block Storage Protocols over IP: RFC 3723 Requirements Update for IPsec v3' 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 2013-08-19. 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 RFC 3723 specifies IPsec requirements for block storage protocols over IP (e.g., iSCSI) based on IPsec v2 (RFC 2401 and related RFCs); those requirements have subsequently been applied to remote direct data placement protocols, e.g., RDMAP. This document updates RFC 3723's IPsec requirements to IPsec v3 (RFC 4301 and related RFCs) and makes some changes to required algorithms based on developments in cryptography since RFC 3723 was published. [RFC Editor: The "Updates:" list above has been truncated by xml2rfc. The complete list is - Updates: 3720, 3723, 3821, 3822, 4018, 4172, 4173, 4174, 5040, 5041, 5042, 5043, 5044, 5045, 5046, 5047, 5048 (if approved) ] The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-08-05
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-08-05
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | Last call was requested |
2013-08-05
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-08-05
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2013-08-05
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | Last call announcement was changed |
2013-08-05
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-08-05
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-07-11
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | (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? … (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? Proposed Standard RFC is requested because this document updates RFC 3723, a Proposed Standard RFC as well as multiple additional Proposed Standard RFCs. Standards Track is indicated as the intended status 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 RFC 3723 specifies IPsec requirements for block storage protocols over IP (e.g., iSCSI) based on IPsec v2 (RFC 2401 and related RFCs); those requirements have subsequently been applied to remote direct data placement protocols, e.g., RDMAP. This document updates RFC 3723's IPsec requirements to IPsec v3 (RFC 4301 and related RFCs) and makes some changes to required algorithms based on developments in cryptography since RFC 3723 was published. Working Group Summary This document updates the IPsec requirements in RFC 3723 and all RFCs to which those requirements apply. The iSCSI maintenance work in the storm WG had originally intended to only update the IPsec requirements for iSCSI. Two developments changed this approach: o Cryptographic developments upended RFC 3723's requirement for 3DES as the mandatory to implement encryption transform. The protocols to which RFC 3723 applies can approach 3DES's birthday bound and need to rekey in less than a minute on high-speed links. o iSER (iSCSI extensions for RDMA) uses RFC 3723 IPsec requirements twice, once for iSCSI and once for the underlying rddp (iWARP) RDMA protocol. An RFC 3723 update is needed for the latter in order to avoid inconsistent IPsec requirements in the same protocol stack. David McGrew and Steve Kent (respectively) deserve credit for surfacing the above two concerns that lead to creation of this document. This document has not been controversial in the storm WG. Document Quality This document specifies a profile of widely implemented protocols, IPsec v2 and v3. The specified cryptographic transforms have been selected as ones that are commonly available in IPsec implementations. Sean Turner (SEC AD) and Paul Hoffman (ipsecme WG chair) were both notably helpful in providing advice on transform selection. Yaron Sheffer (ipsecme WG chair) provided a thorough review that significantly improved the quality of this document. Tom Talpey (storm WG chair) provided a thorough WG Last Call review. The document shepherd is very pleased with the help received from both ipsecme WG co-chairs and the AD responsible for the ipsecme WG. Personnel Document Shepherd: David Black (storm WG co-chair) Responsible Area Director: Martin Stiemerling (Transport) (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 is the primary editor of this document, and has reviewed its text in detail, most recently in dealing with WG Last Call comments. The Document Shepherd believes that this document is ready for RFC publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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? No. (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. None. (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. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? No. (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 storm (STORage Maintenance) WG is a maintenance WG that works on a number of storage technologies, and hence not every participant is interested in every technology. The members of the WG who are interested in the application of IPsec to the WG's protocols understand and agree with this document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (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 2.12.17 finds a number of things to complain about, none of which are actual problems: - The IPsec v2 RFCs are necessary normative references, even though they have obsolete status. - There is no point in repeating the long list of updated RFCs in the abstract. - idnits warns about possible content from before 10 November 2008; there is no such content. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (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? No. There are normative references to two Internet-Drafts. One of them (iSER) is aleady in the RFC Editor's Queue and the other (iSCSI Consolidated) is expected to join it there shortly. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? No. (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 does not change the status of any RFCs. The updated RFCs are discussed in the 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). Not applicable; this document has no IANA considerations. (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. Not applicable. (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. Not applicable. |
2013-07-11
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2013-07-11
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-07-11
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | Shepherding AD changed to Martin Stiemerling |
2013-07-10
|
03 | David Black | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2013-07-10
|
03 | David Black | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2013-07-10
|
03 | David Black | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2013-07-10
|
03 | David Black | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2013-07-10
|
03 | David Black | Document shepherd changed to David L. Black |
2013-07-10
|
03 | David Black | Changed document writeup |
2013-07-10
|
03 | David Black | New version available: draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update-03.txt |
2013-07-09
|
02 | David Black | New version available: draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update-02.txt |
2013-06-07
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update-01.txt |
2013-06-05
|
00 | Amy Vezza | New version available: draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update-00.txt |