Skip to main content

The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite)
draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-lite-02

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
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