The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite)
draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-lite-02
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2017-05-16
|
02 | (System) | Changed document authors from "Gorry Fairhurst, Stephen Pink, Mikael Degermark" to "Gorry Fairhurst, Stephen Pink, Mikael Degermark, Lars-Erik Jonsson, Lars-Åke Larzon" |
|
2004-07-16
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
|
2004-07-16
|
02 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 3828' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2004-07-13
|
02 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2004-06-21
|
02 | Allison Mankin | Note field has been cleared by Allison Mankin |
|
2003-12-11
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
|
2003-12-11
|
02 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'Approved with an RFC Editor Note to fix some errors in Security Considerations: Old: Many strong encryption transforms today exhibit this behavior, for reasons … [Note]: 'Approved with an RFC Editor Note to fix some errors in Security Considerations: Old: Many strong encryption transforms today exhibit this behavior, for reasons obvious from a security point of view. There exist encryption transforms, stream ciphers, which do not spread errors in this way when the damage occurs in the insensitive part of the packet. New: Many encryption transforms today exhibit this behavior. There exist encryptions transforms, stream ciphers, which do not cause error propagation. Note that omitting an integrity check can, under certain circumstances, compromise confidentiality [Bellovin98]. Proper use of stream ciphers poses its own challenges [BB01]. [Bellovin98] Steven M. Bellovin, "Cryptography and the Internet", in Proceedings of CRYPTO ''98, August 1998. [BB01] S. Bellovin and M. Blaze, "Cryptographic Modes of Operation for the Internet", Second NIST Workshop on Modes of Operation, August 2001.' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2003-12-09
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2003-12-09
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2003-12-09
|
02 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2003-12-09
|
02 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2003-12-09
|
02 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2003-11-25
|
02 | Allison Mankin | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Allison Mankin |
|
2003-11-25
|
02 | Allison Mankin | [Note]: 'Approved with an RFC Editor Note to fix some errors in Security Considerations: Old: Many strong encryption transforms today exhibit this behavior, for reasons … [Note]: 'Approved with an RFC Editor Note to fix some errors in Security Considerations: Old: Many strong encryption transforms today exhibit this behavior, for reasons obvious from a security point of view. There exist encryption transforms, stream ciphers, which do not spread errors in this way when the damage occurs in the insensitive part of the packet. New: Many encryption transforms today exhibit this behavior. There exist encryptions transforms, stream ciphers, which do not cause error propagation. Note that omitting an integrity check can, under certain circumstances, compromise confidentiality [Bellovin98]. Proper use of stream ciphers poses its own challenges [BB01]. [Bellovin98] Steven M. Bellovin, "Cryptography and the Internet", in Proceedings of CRYPTO ''98, August 1998. [BB01] S. Bellovin and M. Blaze, "Cryptographic Modes of Operation for the Internet", Second NIST Workshop on Modes of Operation, August 2001.' added by Allison Mankin |
|
2003-11-25
|
02 | Allison Mankin | [Note]: 'Approved with an RFC Editor Note to fix some errors in Security Considerations: Old: Many strong encryption transforms today exhibit this behavior, for reasons … [Note]: 'Approved with an RFC Editor Note to fix some errors in Security Considerations: Old: Many strong encryption transforms today exhibit this behavior, for reasons obvious from a security point of view. There exist encryption transforms, stream ciphers, which do not spread errors in this way when the damage occurs in the insensitive part of the packet. New: Many encryption transforms today exhibit this behavior. There exist encryptions transforms, stream ciphers, which do not cause error propagation. Note that omitting an integrity check can, under certain circumstances, compromise confidentiality [Bellovin98]. Proper use of stream ciphers poses its own challenges [BB01]. [Bellovin98] Steven M. Bellovin, "Cryptography and the Internet", in Proceedings of CRYPTO ''98, August 1998. [BB01] S. Bellovin and M. Blaze, "Cryptographic Modes of Operation for the Internet", Second NIST Workshop on Modes of Operation, August 2001. ' added by Allison Mankin |
|
2003-11-25
|
02 | Allison Mankin | Approved with an RFC Editor Note to fix some errors in Security Considerations: Old: Many strong encryption transforms today exhibit this behavior, for reasons obvious … Approved with an RFC Editor Note to fix some errors in Security Considerations: Old: Many strong encryption transforms today exhibit this behavior, for reasons obvious from a security point of view. There exist encryption transforms, stream ciphers, which do not spread errors in this way when the damage occurs in the insensitive part of the packet. New: Many encryption transforms today exhibit this behavior. There exist encryptions transforms, stream ciphers, which do not cause error propagation. Note that omitting an integrity check can, under certain circumstances, compromise confidentiality [Bellovin98]. Proper use of stream ciphers poses its own challenges [BB01]. [Bellovin98] Steven M. Bellovin, "Cryptography and the Internet", in Proceedings of CRYPTO '98, August 1998. [BB01] S. Bellovin and M. Blaze, "Cryptographic Modes of Operation for the Internet", Second NIST Workshop on Modes of Operation, August 2001. |
|
2003-11-02
|
02 | Allison Mankin | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed by Allison Mankin |
|
2003-09-03
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-lite-02.txt |
|
2003-04-25
|
02 | Allison Mankin | State Changes to IESG Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Mankin, Allison |
|
2003-02-14
|
02 | Jacqueline Hargest | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Hargest, Jacqueline |
|
2003-01-03
|
02 | Allison Mankin | State Changes to Waiting for Writeup from Waiting for Writeup :: Revised ID Needed by Mankin, Allison |
|
2002-12-06
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-lite-01.txt |
|
2002-11-19
|
02 | Allison Mankin | Rev needed based on the Last Call comments - token taken by Lars-Erik and Gorry. 2002-Nov-19 |
|
2002-11-19
|
02 | Allison Mankin | State Changes to Waiting for Writeup :: Revised ID Needed from Waiting for Writeup by Mankin, Allison |
|
2002-11-13
|
02 | Stephen Coya | Due date has been changed to 2002-05-15 from by Coya, Steve |
|
2002-08-02
|
02 | Allison Mankin | Its IETF Last Call ended 2002-05-15. It had negative comments from Keith Moore. |
|
2002-08-02
|
02 | Allison Mankin | A new comment added by mankin |
|
2002-05-16
|
02 | Stephen Coya | State Changes to Wait for Writeup from Last Call … State Changes to Wait for Writeup from Last Call Issued by scoya |
|
2002-05-03
|
02 | Stephen Coya | State Changes to Last Call Issued from Wait for … State Changes to Last Call Issued from Wait for Writeup by scoya |
|
2002-05-03
|
02 | Stephen Coya | State Changes to Wait for Writeup from Last Call … State Changes to Wait for Writeup from Last Call Issued by scoya |
|
2002-05-03
|
02 | Allison Mankin | responsible has been changed to from Unassigned |
|
2002-05-03
|
02 | Allison Mankin | State Changes to Last Call Issued from Last Call … State Changes to Last Call Issued from Last Call Requested by Allison Mankin |
|
2002-05-01
|
02 | Stephen Coya | Draft Added by Steve Coya |
|
2002-05-01
|
02 | (System) | Last call sent |
|
2002-01-25
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-lite-00.txt |