Test Vectors for the Stream Cipher RC4
draft-josefsson-rc4-test-vectors-02
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2011-03-08
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
2011-03-07
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2011-03-07
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2011-03-07
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2011-03-07
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2011-03-07
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2011-03-07
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Ballot has been issued |
2011-03-07
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2011-03-07
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-03-03
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2011-03-03
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation. |
2011-03-03
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-03
|
02 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-03
|
02 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-03
|
02 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-02
|
02 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-02
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-02
|
02 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-02
|
02 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-02
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-01
|
02 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-01
|
02 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-02-26
|
02 | Sam Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Tom Yu. |
2011-02-23
|
02 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2011-02-23
|
02 | Sean Turner | Ballot has been issued |
2011-02-23
|
02 | Sean Turner | Created "Approve" ballot |
2011-02-22
|
02 | Sean Turner | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
2011-02-22
|
02 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
2011-02-03
|
02 | Amanda Baber | We understand that this document does not require any IANA actions. |
2011-02-01
|
02 | Sam Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2011-02-01
|
02 | Sam Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2011-01-26
|
02 | Sean Turner | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-03-03 |
2011-01-26
|
02 | Sean Turner | Status Date has been changed to 2011-01-26 from None |
2011-01-25
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2011-01-25
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Test vectors for the stream cipher RC4) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Test vectors for the stream cipher RC4' as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-02-22. 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. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-josefsson-rc4-test-vectors/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-josefsson-rc4-test-vectors/ |
2011-01-25
|
02 | Sean Turner | Last Call was requested |
2011-01-25
|
02 | Sean Turner | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested. |
2011-01-25
|
02 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2011-01-25
|
02 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2011-01-25
|
02 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2011-01-25
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Simon Josefsson is the Document Shepherd. He reviewed the document and believes it is ready. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The test vectors in the document have been reviewed and confirmed by several people (including independently by the two author) for several implementations. The draft has been brought to the attention of the CFRG: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/threads.html#02757 As a result, David McGrew's security consideration text has been added. While the number of people that have reviewed the document isn't extensive, the quality of the reviews makes us feel confident that the document is good to go. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? None. The document doesn't define a protocol, it just provides test vectors, so the essential review is to make sure there aren't errors in the test vectors. That should be covered already. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues 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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. One concern is that maybe not all potential RC4 cut-off points are included, however we did as best we could to identify practically used cut-off points and provide test vectors for them. If other cut-off points are needed in the future, the document could be updated. Otherwise it is a fairly non-controversial document. (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it? I believe most people in the crypto community agree with the need for test vectors for crypto algorithms even if they didn't take time to double check the test vectors themselves. (1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? It passes the idnits checks with 6 warnings about "weird spacing" due to hex encoded data. I noted one issue when doing this check: the acronym LSB should be expanded on first use. This could be fixed in AUTH48. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The is only one normative reference: [RC4] Schneier, B., "Applied Cryptography Second Edition: protocols algorithms and source in code in C. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY", 1996. This reference is a normative reference in RFC 4345 (a Standards Track document), and likely other documents too. The informative reference contains external links, and there is always concern about stability of them but I believe they provide useful information. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? There is no IANA considerations. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? No formal languages are used. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document contains test vectors for the stream cipher RC4. Working Group Summary This is not the product of a WG. Document Quality There are multiple implementations that confirmed these test vectors. |
2011-01-25
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
2011-01-25
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Simon Josefsson (simon@josefsson.org) is the Document Shepherd.' added |
2011-01-23
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-josefsson-rc4-test-vectors-02.txt |
2010-12-31
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2010-06-29
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-josefsson-rc4-test-vectors-01.txt |
2010-05-03
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-josefsson-rc4-test-vectors-00.txt |