Skip to main content

Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-05-06
06 (System) Changed action holders to Francesca Palombini (IESG state changed)
2022-05-06
06 Francesca Palombini IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2022-05-06
06 Francesca Palombini
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?

BCP. This is the correct type of RFC, since the document provides recommendations for improving the security of deployed services that use TLS and DTLS.

(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:

Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
  (DTLS) are widely used to protect data exchanged over application
  protocols such as HTTP, SMTP, IMAP, POP, SIP, and XMPP.  Over the
  years, the industry has witnessed several serious attacks on TLS and
  DTLS, including attacks on the most commonly used cipher suites and
  their modes of operation.  This document provides recommendations for
  improving the security of deployed services that use TLS and DTLS.
  The recommendations are applicable to the majority of use cases.

  This document was published as RFC 7525 when the industry was in the
  midst of its transition to TLS 1.2.  Years later this transition is
  largely complete and TLS 1.3 is widely available.  Given the new
  environment, updated guidance is needed.

Working Group Summary:

The only signifficant challenge has been that the TLS wg keeps getting proposed work that should really have been sent to UTA and the RFC7525 bis work much more quickly. This has led to a number of "resets" and two separate WGLCs.

Document Quality:

The document is clear and has been widely cited and used in the industry

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Leif Johansson is the Document Shepherd, Francesca Palombini is the Responsible Area Director.

(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.

I have reviewed the document and have no concerns other than that there is a risk that a bisbis document will have to be created soon because new research into TLS keeps bringing up issues.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

There has been extensive reivew by the WG during two WGLCs that also resulted in changes and improvements. The document is ready as is.

(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.

Not at this point

(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 specific concerns

(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 disclosures

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The support is strong. There are no issues here.

(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

(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.

There are a couple of downrefs but these are mainly because the document is deprecating stuff.

(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?

None

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

Yes, cf above on idnits.

(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.

Yes, updating RFC7525

(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).

No IANA actions

(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.

None

(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
2022-05-06
06 Francesca Palombini Ballot writeup was changed
2022-05-05
06 Leif Johansson
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?

BCP

(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:

Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
  (DTLS) are widely used to protect data exchanged over application
  protocols such as HTTP, SMTP, IMAP, POP, SIP, and XMPP.  Over the
  years, the industry has witnessed several serious attacks on TLS and
  DTLS, including attacks on the most commonly used cipher suites and
  their modes of operation.  This document provides recommendations for
  improving the security of deployed services that use TLS and DTLS.
  The recommendations are applicable to the majority of use cases.

  This document was published as RFC 7525 when the industry was in the
  midst of its transition to TLS 1.2.  Years later this transition is
  largely complete and TLS 1.3 is widely available.  Given the new
  environment, updated guidance is needed.

Working Group Summary:

The only signifficant challenge has been that the TLS wg keeps getting proposed work that should really have been sent to UTA and the RFC7525 bis work much more quickly. This has led to a number of "resets" and two separate WGLCs.

Document Quality:

The document is clear and has been widely cited and used in the industry

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Leif Johansson

(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.

I have reviewed the document and have no concerns other than that there is a risk that a bisbis document will have to be created soon because new research into TLS keeps bringing up issues.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

There has been extensive reivew by the WG during two WGLCs that also resulted in changes and improvements. The document is ready as is.

(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.

Not at this point

(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 specific concerns

(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 disclosures

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The support is strong. There are no issues here.

(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

(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.

There are a couple of downrefs but these are mainly because the document is deprecating stuff.

(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?

None

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

Yes, cf above on idnits.

(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.

Yes, updating RFC7525

(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).

No IANA actions

(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.

None

(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
2022-05-05
06 Leif Johansson Responsible AD changed to Francesca Palombini
2022-05-05
06 Leif Johansson IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2022-05-05
06 Leif Johansson IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2022-05-05
06 Leif Johansson IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2022-05-05
06 Leif Johansson Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-05-05
06 Leif Johansson Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice from None
2022-05-05
06 Leif Johansson
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?

BCP

(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:

Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
  (DTLS) are widely used to protect data exchanged over application
  protocols such as HTTP, SMTP, IMAP, POP, SIP, and XMPP.  Over the
  years, the industry has witnessed several serious attacks on TLS and
  DTLS, including attacks on the most commonly used cipher suites and
  their modes of operation.  This document provides recommendations for
  improving the security of deployed services that use TLS and DTLS.
  The recommendations are applicable to the majority of use cases.

  This document was published as RFC 7525 when the industry was in the
  midst of its transition to TLS 1.2.  Years later this transition is
  largely complete and TLS 1.3 is widely available.  Given the new
  environment, updated guidance is needed.

Working Group Summary:

The only signifficant challenge has been that the TLS wg keeps getting proposed work that should really have been sent to UTA and the RFC7525 bis work much more quickly. This has led to a number of "resets" and two separate WGLCs.

Document Quality:

The document is clear and has been widely cited and used in the industry

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Leif Johansson

(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.

I have reviewed the document and have no concerns other than that there is a risk that a bisbis document will have to be created soon because new research into TLS keeps bringing up issues.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

There has been extensive reivew by the WG during two WGLCs that also resulted in changes and improvements. The document is ready as is.

(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.

Not at this point

(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 specific concerns

(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 disclosures

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The support is strong. There are no issues here.

(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

(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.

There are a couple of downrefs but these are mainly because the document is deprecating stuff.

(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?

None

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

Yes, cf above on idnits.

(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.

Yes, updating RFC7525

(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).

No IANA actions

(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.

None

(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
2022-03-24
06 Yaron Sheffer New version available: draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis-06.txt
2022-03-24
06 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yaron Sheffer)
2022-03-24
06 Yaron Sheffer Uploaded new revision
2022-03-23
05 Leif Johansson Notification list changed to leifj@sunet.se because the document shepherd was set
2022-03-23
05 Leif Johansson Document shepherd changed to Leif Johansson
2022-03-08
05 Valery Smyslov IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2022-02-14
05 Valery Smyslov Second WGLC to get an explicit confirmation of consensus
2022-02-14
05 Valery Smyslov Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2022-02-14
05 Valery Smyslov IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2022-02-03
05 Yaron Sheffer New version available: draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis-05.txt
2022-02-03
05 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yaron Sheffer)
2022-02-03
05 Yaron Sheffer Uploaded new revision
2021-12-24
04 Valery Smyslov Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2021-12-24
04 Valery Smyslov IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2021-12-07
04 Valery Smyslov IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2021-11-22
04 Yaron Sheffer New version available: draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis-04.txt
2021-11-22
04 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yaron Sheffer)
2021-11-22
04 Yaron Sheffer Uploaded new revision
2021-11-05
03 Valery Smyslov Added to session: IETF-112: uta  Fri-1600
2021-10-25
03 Yaron Sheffer New version available: draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis-03.txt
2021-10-25
03 (System) New version approved
2021-10-25
03 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>, Ralph Holz <ralph.ietf@gmail.com>, Thomas Fossati <thomas.fossati@arm.com>, Yaron Sheffer …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>, Ralph Holz <ralph.ietf@gmail.com>, Thomas Fossati <thomas.fossati@arm.com>, Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
2021-10-25
03 Yaron Sheffer Uploaded new revision
2021-08-28
02 Yaron Sheffer New version available: draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis-02.txt
2021-08-28
02 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yaron Sheffer)
2021-08-28
02 Yaron Sheffer Uploaded new revision
2021-07-15
01 Valery Smyslov Added to session: IETF-111: uta  Wed-1430
2021-07-07
01 Yaron Sheffer New version available: draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis-01.txt
2021-07-07
01 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yaron Sheffer)
2021-07-07
01 Yaron Sheffer Uploaded new revision
2021-05-02
00 (System) Document has expired
2020-10-29
00 Valery Smyslov This document now replaces draft-sheffer-uta-bcp195bis, draft-sheffer-uta-rfc7525bis instead of None
2020-10-29
00 Yaron Sheffer New version available: draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis-00.txt
2020-10-29
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2020-10-29
00 Yaron Sheffer Set submitter to "Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>", replaces to draft-sheffer-uta-bcp195bis, draft-sheffer-uta-rfc7525bis and sent approval email to group chairs: uta-chairs@ietf.org
2020-10-29
00 Yaron Sheffer Uploaded new revision