Deprecating MD5 and SHA-1 Signature Hashes in TLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.2
draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-01-26
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Joel Jaeggli Last Call OPSDIR review |
2024-01-26
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue |
2021-12-10
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2021-11-19
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2021-10-12
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2021-09-28
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2021-09-28
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2021-09-28
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2021-09-27
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2021-09-27
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2021-09-27
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2021-09-27
|
09 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2021-09-27
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2021-09-27
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2021-09-27
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2021-09-27
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2021-09-27
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2021-09-23
|
09 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2021-09-23
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2021-09-22
|
09 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2021-09-22
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2021-09-21
|
09 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2021-09-21
|
09 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2021-09-20
|
09 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2021-09-20
|
09 | Francesca Palombini | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini |
2021-09-20
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2021-09-20
|
09 | Alessandro Ghedini | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-09.txt |
2021-09-20
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-09-20
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alessandro Ghedini , Kathleen Moriarty , Loganaden Velvindron |
2021-09-20
|
09 | Alessandro Ghedini | Uploaded new revision |
2021-09-20
|
08 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as … [Ballot comment] All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. Section 1. , paragraph 2, nit: - the end of 2013, based on both the Wang, et. al, attack and the - - + the end of 2013, based on both the Wang, et al., attack and the + + Uncited references: [CAB-Baseline] Obsolete reference to RFC5246, obsoleted by RFC8446 (this may be on purpose). These URLs in the document did not return content: * https://www.cabforum.org/documents.html |
2021-09-20
|
08 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lars Eggert |
2021-09-20
|
08 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2021-09-17
|
08 | John Scudder | [Ballot comment] Misspelling in author’s address: “Center for Interent Security” should be “ Center for Internet Security”. |
2021-09-17
|
08 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2021-09-16
|
08 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Section 1 deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection. Note that the CABF has also deprecated use of SHA-1 [CABF]. We … [Ballot comment] Section 1 deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection. Note that the CABF has also deprecated use of SHA-1 [CABF]. We might say that the CABF action was deprecation for use in certificate signatures (not that CABF is likely to be concerned about other uses of SHA1, of course). Section 5 Clients MUST NOT include MD5 and SHA-1 in CertificateVerify messages. If a server receives a CertificateVerify message with MD5 or SHA-1 it MUST abort the connection with handshake_failure or insufficient_security alert. I don't see much harm in adding "illegal_parameter" to the list of allowed alerts here, as Hubert proposed. It's otherwise the natural thing to do if an algorithm is received in CertificateVerify that was not advertised in the signature algorithms extension. Sean's proposal at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/rSbXvNPhmr27z0HOBzwv6x0j1mI/ (which makes "illegal_parameter" the only alert) seems like it ought to work. |
2021-09-16
|
08 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2021-09-13
|
08 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2021-09-09
|
08 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2021-09-08
|
08 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2021-09-07
|
08 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2021-09-06
|
08 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2021-09-03
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2021-09-23 |
2021-09-03
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot has been issued |
2021-09-03
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2021-09-03
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | Created "Approve" ballot |
2021-09-03
|
08 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed) |
2021-09-03
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup |
2021-09-03
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot writeup was changed |
2021-09-03
|
08 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2021-09-03
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2021-09-03
|
08 | Alessandro Ghedini | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-08.txt |
2021-09-03
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-09-03
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alessandro Ghedini , Kathleen Moriarty , Loganaden Velvindron |
2021-09-03
|
08 | Alessandro Ghedini | Uploaded new revision |
2021-09-02
|
07 | Sean Turner | Notification list changed to loganaden@gmail.com, sean@sn3rd.com from joe@salowey.net, loganaden@gmail.com, sean@sn3rd.com |
2021-08-28
|
07 | Sean Turner | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. (1) What type of … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. (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 standards track because it updates standards track documents. The document type is indicated in the 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: The MD5 and SHA-1 hashing algorithms are steadily weakening in strength and their deprecation process should begin for their use in TLS 1.2 digital signatures. However, this document does not deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection. Working Group Summary: There is strong support ins the working group for this document. Document Quality: The document has be reviewed by members of the working group. Personnel: document Shepard is Sean Turner and the responsible AD is Ben Kaduk. (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 reviewing this document and believes it ready for publication. While resolving the IoT Directorate comments additional comments were received that resulted in the I-D dropping the updates to RFC 7525 (in -10 s7). When this I-D start 7525bis (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis/) was not a thing, now it is so we moved those updates to that I-D. Likewise, there was some confusion about the implications of not sending the default MTIs - the end result is that the signature_algorithms extension is always sent. So, we added that to the I-D. The single OLD/NEW updates section in the I-D was also dropped (in -10 s6). Changing the note seemed of dubious value. (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? If so, describe the review that took place. 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. No (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? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR (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 is strong consensus behind the document (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 threat of 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. spt: there is a nit about referring to pre-RFC5378 text and missing the 5378 warning. There is one sentence copied from RFC 5246 that is part of the OLD/NEW text suggested in s6. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (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. 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 updates other RFCs, but does not change their state. (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 8126). The document does not have any considerations for IANA (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. The document does not list any new registries (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, YANG modules, etc. Not applicable (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? Not applicable |
2021-07-28
|
07 | Sean Turner | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. (1) What type of … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. (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 standards track because it updates standards track documents. The document type is indicated in the 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: The MD5 and SHA-1 hashing algorithms are steadily weakening in strength and their deprecation process should begin for their use in TLS 1.2 digital signatures. However, this document does not deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection. Working Group Summary: There is strong support ins the working group for this document. Document Quality: The document has be reviewed by members of the working group. Personnel: document Shepard is Sean Turner and the responsible AD is Ben Kaduk. (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 reviewing this document and believes it is almost ready for publication. Discussion is ongoing with the authors. (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? If so, describe the review that took place. 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. No (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? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR (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 is strong consensus behind the document (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 threat of 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. spt: there is a nit about referring to pre-RFC5378 text and missing the 5378 warning. There is one sentence copied from RFC 5246 that is part of the OLD/NEW text suggested in s6. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (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. 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 updates other RFCs, but does not change their state. (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 8126). The document does not have any considerations for IANA (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. The document does not list any new registries (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, YANG modules, etc. Not applicable (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? Not applicable |
2021-07-28
|
07 | Sean Turner | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. (1) What type of … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. (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 standards track because it updates standards track documents. The document type is indicated in the 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: The MD5 and SHA-1 hashing algorithms are steadily weakening in strength and their deprecation process should begin for their use in TLS 1.2 digital signatures. However, this document does not deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection. Working Group Summary: There is strong support ins the working group for this document. Document Quality: The document has be reviewed by members of the working group. Personnel: document Shepard is Sean TUrner and the responsible AD is Ben Kaduk. (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 reviewing this document and believes it is almost ready for publication. Discussion is ongoing with the authors. (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? If so, describe the review that took place. 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. No (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? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR (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 is strong consensus behind the document (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 threat of 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. spt: there is a nit about referring to pre-RFC5378 text and missing the 5378 warning. There is one sentence copied from RFC 5246 that is part of the OLD/NEW text suggested in s6. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (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. 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 updates other RFCs, but does not change their state. (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 8126). The document does not have any considerations for IANA (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. The document does not list any new registries (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, YANG modules, etc. Not applicable (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? Not applicable |
2021-07-28
|
07 | Sean Turner | Notification list changed to joe@salowey.net, loganaden@gmail.com, sean@sn3rd.com from joe@salowey.net, loganaden@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
2021-07-28
|
07 | Sean Turner | Document shepherd changed to Sean Turner |
2021-07-28
|
07 | Roman Danyliw | Pending resolution of remaining IOTDIR feedback: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/kIduqIwgdB38ITHvVu9UE0WQ0JE/ |
2021-07-28
|
07 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup |
2021-05-17
|
07 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-07.txt |
2021-05-17
|
07 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Loganaden Velvindron) |
2021-05-17
|
07 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2021-03-29
|
06 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-06.txt |
2021-03-29
|
06 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Loganaden Velvindron) |
2021-03-29
|
06 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2021-03-23
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2021-03-23
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2021-03-23
|
05 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-05.txt |
2021-03-23
|
05 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Loganaden Velvindron) |
2021-03-23
|
05 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2021-02-25
|
04 | Roman Danyliw | Please address feedback from IETC LC: * Nits from GENART Review -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/1O66ab5vSvasdpwsxS6cF5xObe0/ * Nits from idnits in the SECDIR Review -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/W9YTl-krOsdnBLwTlVLAlEA7m5U/ * Resolve … Please address feedback from IETC LC: * Nits from GENART Review -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/1O66ab5vSvasdpwsxS6cF5xObe0/ * Nits from idnits in the SECDIR Review -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/W9YTl-krOsdnBLwTlVLAlEA7m5U/ * Resolve IOTDIR Review -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/gmE5K5CIdLKHcEltG5DRdvWAZZQ/ * Editorial LC feedback -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/A-ylwEUGiTg_mRddoTV4qsy2VSU/ |
2021-02-25
|
04 | (System) | Changed action holders to Kathleen Moriarty, Loganaden Velvindron, Alessandro Ghedini (IESG state changed) |
2021-02-25
|
04 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup |
2021-01-21
|
04 | Sean Turner | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. (1) What type of … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. (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 standards track because it updates standards track documents. The document type is indicated in the 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: The MD5 and SHA-1 hashing algorithms are steadily weakening in strength and their deprecation process should begin for their use in TLS 1.2 digital signatures. However, this document does not deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection. Working Group Summary: There is strong support ins the working group for this document. Document Quality: The document has be reviewed by members of the working group. Personnel: document Shepard is Joseph Salowey and the responsible AD is Ben Kaduk (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 reviewing this document and believes it is almost ready for publication. Discussion is ongoing with the authors. (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? If so, describe the review that took place. 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. No (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? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR (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 is strong consensus behind the document (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 threat of 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. spt: there is a nit about referring to pre-RFC5378 text and missing the 5378 warning. There is one sentence copied from RFC 5246 that is part of the OLD/NEW text suggested in s6. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (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. 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 updates other RFCs, but does not change their state. (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 8126). The document does not have any considerations for IANA (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. The document does not list any new registries (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, YANG modules, etc. Not applicable (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? Not applicable |
2020-12-12
|
04 | Sean Turner | Notification list changed to joe@salowey.net, loganaden@gmail.com from joe@salowey.net |
2020-11-15
|
04 | Roman Danyliw | Please resolved the IOTDIR feedback (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-04-iotdir-lc-migault-2020-10-27/) |
2020-11-15
|
04 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup from Waiting for Writeup |
2020-10-28
|
04 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK |
2020-10-28
|
04 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2020-10-28
|
04 | Ted Lemon | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Ted Lemon. Sent review to list. |
2020-10-28
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2020-10-27
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2020-10-27
|
04 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. In the TLS SignatureScheme registry on the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/ two signature schemes are to have the "Recommended" field changed from Y to N. They are: 0x0201 | rsa_pkcs1_sha1 and 0x0203 | ecdsa_sha1 In both cases the [ RFC-to-be ] will be added to the reference. As this document requests changes in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK." The IANA Functions 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2020-10-27
|
04 | Daniel Migault | Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Daniel Migault. Sent review to list. |
2020-10-27
|
04 | Meral Shirazipour | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. Sent review to list. |
2020-10-22
|
04 | Rich Salz | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Rich Salz. Sent review to list. |
2020-10-22
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rich Salz |
2020-10-22
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rich Salz |
2020-10-20
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli |
2020-10-20
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli |
2020-10-18
|
04 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Ted Lemon |
2020-10-18
|
04 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Ted Lemon |
2020-10-16
|
04 | Samita Chakrabarti | Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Daniel Migault |
2020-10-16
|
04 | Samita Chakrabarti | Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Daniel Migault |
2020-10-16
|
04 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Last Call review by INTDIR |
2020-10-16
|
04 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Last Call review by IOTDIR |
2020-10-15
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2020-10-15
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2020-10-14
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2020-10-14
|
04 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-10-28): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: joe@salowey.net, rdd@cert.org, tls@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate@ietf.org, tls-chairs@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-10-28): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: joe@salowey.net, rdd@cert.org, tls@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate@ietf.org, tls-chairs@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Deprecating MD5 and SHA-1 signature hashes in TLS 1.2) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG (tls) to consider the following document: - 'Deprecating MD5 and SHA-1 signature hashes in TLS 1.2' 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 last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-10-28. 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 The MD5 and SHA-1 hashing algorithms are steadily weakening in strength and their deprecation process should begin for their use in TLS 1.2 digital signatures. However, this document does not deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection. This document updates RFC 5246 and RFC 7525. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2020-10-14
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2020-10-14
|
04 | Roman Danyliw | Last call was requested |
2020-10-14
|
04 | Roman Danyliw | Last call announcement was generated |
2020-10-14
|
04 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-10-14
|
04 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot writeup was generated |
2020-10-14
|
04 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-10-09
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-10-09
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-04.txt |
2020-10-09
|
04 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kathleen Moriarty) |
2020-10-09
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | Uploaded new revision |
2020-10-02
|
03 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
2020-10-02
|
03 | Roman Danyliw | AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/HQJXFneaB1Ukg_3BrUgnJPv0eac/ |
2020-09-15
|
03 | Benjamin Kaduk | Shepherding AD changed to Roman Danyliw |
2020-05-17
|
03 | Joseph Salowey | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. (1) What type of … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. (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 standards track because it updates standards track documents. The document type is indicated in the 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: The MD5 and SHA-1 hashing algorithms are steadily weakening in strength and their deprecation process should begin for their use in TLS 1.2 digital signatures. However, this document does not deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection. Working Group Summary: There is strong support ins the working group for this document. Document Quality: The document has be reviewed by members of the working group. Personnel: document Shepard is Joseph Salowey and the responsible AD is Ben Kaduk (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 reviewing this document and believes it is almost ready for publication. Discussion is ongoing with the authors. (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? If so, describe the review that took place. 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. No (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? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR (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 is strong consensus behind the document (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 threat of 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. No Nits found (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (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. 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 updates other RFCs, but does not change their state. (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 8126). The document does not have any considerations for IANA (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. The document does not list any new registries (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, YANG modules, etc. Not applicable (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? Not applicable |
2020-05-17
|
03 | Joseph Salowey | Responsible AD changed to Benjamin Kaduk |
2020-05-17
|
03 | Joseph Salowey | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2020-05-17
|
03 | Joseph Salowey | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2020-05-17
|
03 | Joseph Salowey | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2020-05-17
|
03 | Joseph Salowey | Notification list changed to joe@salowey.net from Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> |
2020-05-17
|
03 | Joseph Salowey | Tags Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway, Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2020-05-17
|
03 | Joseph Salowey | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. (1) What type of … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. (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 standards track because it updates standards track documents. The document type is indicated in the 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: The MD5 and SHA-1 hashing algorithms are steadily weakening in strength and their deprecation process should begin for their use in TLS 1.2 digital signatures. However, this document does not deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection. Working Group Summary: There is strong support ins the working group for this document. Document Quality: The document has be reviewed by members of the working group. Personnel: document Shepard is Joseph Salowey and the responsible AD is Ben Kaduk (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 reviewing this document and believes it is almost ready for publication. Discussion is ongoing with the authors. (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? If so, describe the review that took place. 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. No (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? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR (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 is strong consensus behind the document (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 threat of 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. No Nits found (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (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. 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 updates other RFCs, but does not change their state. (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 8126). The document does not have any considerations for IANA (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. The document does not list any new registries (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, YANG modules, etc. Not applicable (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? Not applicable |
2020-05-14
|
03 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-03.txt |
2020-05-14
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-05-14
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kathleen Moriarty , Loganaden Velvindron , Alessandro Ghedini |
2020-05-14
|
03 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-13
|
02 | Joseph Salowey | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. (1) What type of … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. (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 standards track because it updates standards track documents. The document type is indicated in the 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: The MD5 and SHA-1 hashing algorithms are steadily weakening in strength and their deprecation process should begin for their use in TLS 1.2 digital signatures. However, this document does not deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection. Working Group Summary: There is strong support ins the working group for this document. Document Quality: The document has be reviewed by members of the working group. Personnel: document Shepard is Joseph Salowey and the responsible AD is Ben Kaduk (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 reviewing this document and believes it is almost ready for publication. Discussion is ongoing with the authors. (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? If so, describe the review that took place. 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. No (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? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR (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 is strong consensus behind the document (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 threat of 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. No Nits found (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (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. 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 updates other RFCs, but does not change their state. (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 8126). The document does not have any considerations for IANA (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. The document does not list any new registries (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, YANG modules, etc. Not applicable (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? Not applicable |
2020-05-13
|
02 | Joseph Salowey | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2020-05-13
|
02 | Joseph Salowey | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2020-05-03
|
02 | Joseph Salowey | 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 May 3 2020. (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 standards track because it updates standards track documents. The document type is indicated in the 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: The MD5 and SHA-1 hashing algorithms are steadily weakening in strength and their deprecation process should begin for their use in TLS 1.2 digital signatures. However, this document does not deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection. Working Group Summary: There is strong support ins the working group for this document. Document Quality: The document has be reviewed by members of the working group. Personnel: document Shepard is Joseph Salowey and the responsible AD is Ben Kaduk (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 reviewing this document and believes it is almost ready for publication. Discussion is ongoing with the authors. (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? If so, describe the review that took place. 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. No (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? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR (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 is strong consensus behind the document (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 threat of 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. No Nits found (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (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. 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 updates other RFCs, but does not change their state. (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 8126). The document does not have any considerations for IANA (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. The document does not list any new registries (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, YANG modules, etc. Not applicable (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? Not applicable |
2020-05-03
|
02 | Joseph Salowey | 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 1 November 2019. (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 standards track because it updates standards track documents. The document type is indicated in the 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: The MD5 and SHA-1 hashing algorithms are steadily weakening in strength and their deprecation process should begin for their use in TLS 1.2 digital signatures. However, this document does not deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection. Working Group Summary: There is strong support ins the working group for this document. Document Quality: The document has be reviewed by members of the working group. Personnel: document Shepard is Joseph Salowey and the responsible AD is Ben Kaduk (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 reviewing this document and believes it is almost ready for publication. Discussion is ongoing with the authors. (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? If so, describe the review that took place. 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. No (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? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR (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 is strong consensus behind the document (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 threat of 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. No Nits found (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (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. 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 updates other RFCs, but does not change their state. (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 8126). The document does not have any considerations for IANA (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. The document does not list any new registries (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, YANG modules, etc. Not applicable (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? Not applicable |
2020-01-22
|
02 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-02.txt |
2020-01-22
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-01-22
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alessandro Ghedini , Loganaden Velvindron , Kathleen Moriarty |
2020-01-22
|
02 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-21
|
01 | Joseph Salowey | 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 1 November 2019. (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 standards track because it updates standards track documents. The document type is indicated in the 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: The MD5 and SHA-1 hashing algorithms are steadily weakening in strength and their deprecation process should begin for their use in TLS 1.2 digital signatures. However, this document does not deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection. Working Group Summary: There is strong support ins the working group for this document. Document Quality: The document has be reviewed by members of the working group. Personnel: document Shepard is Joseph Salowey and the responsible AD is Ben Kaduk (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 reviewing this document and believes it is almost ready for publication. Discussion is ongoing with the authors. (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? If so, describe the review that took place. 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. No (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? TBD, message sent to authors (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 (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 is strong consensus behind the document (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 threat of 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. No Nits found (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (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. 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 updates other RFCs, but does not change their state. (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 8126). The document does not have any considerations for IANA (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. The document does not list any new registries (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, YANG modules, etc. Not applicable (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? Not applicable |
2020-01-21
|
01 | Joseph Salowey | 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 1 November 2019. (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 standards track because it updates standards track documents. The document type is indicated in the 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: The MD5 and SHA-1 hashing algorithms are steadily weakening in strength and their deprecation process should begin for their use in TLS 1.2 digital signatures. However, this document does not deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection. Working Group Summary: There is strong support ins the working group for this document. Document Quality: The document has be reviewed by members of the working group. Personnel: document Shepard is Joseph Salowey and the responsible AD is Ben Kaduk (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 this document and believes it is ready for 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? If so, describe the review that took place. 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. No (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? TBD (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 (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 is strong consensus behind the document (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 threat of 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. No Nits found (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (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. 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 updates other RFCs, but does not change their state. (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 8126). The document does not have any considerations for IANA (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. The document does not list any new registries (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, YANG modules, etc. Not applicable (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? Not applicable |
2020-01-21
|
01 | Joseph Salowey | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared. |
2020-01-16
|
01 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-01.txt |
2020-01-16
|
01 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Loganaden Velvindron) |
2020-01-16
|
01 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-09
|
00 | Joseph Salowey | Notification list changed to Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> |
2020-01-09
|
00 | Joseph Salowey | Document shepherd changed to Joseph A. Salowey |
2019-12-17
|
00 | Sean Turner | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set. |
2019-12-17
|
00 | Sean Turner | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2019-11-21
|
00 | Sean Turner | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2019-11-04
|
00 | Sean Turner | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2019-11-04
|
00 | Sean Turner | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2019-11-04
|
00 | Sean Turner | Changed document URLs from: [] to: repository https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate |
2019-10-16
|
00 | Sean Turner | This document now replaces draft-lvelvindron-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate instead of None |
2019-09-02
|
00 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-00.txt |
2019-09-02
|
00 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-09-02
|
00 | Loganaden Velvindron | Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Loganaden Velvindron |
2019-09-02
|
00 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |