Modes of Operation for Camellia for Use with IPsec
draft-kato-ipsec-camellia-modes-10
Yes
(Tim Polk)
No Objection
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Jon Peterson)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Tim Polk Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-11-06)
Unknown
Every time we add yet-another symmetric cipher on the standards track, we create another code-path that could contain security bugs in deployed software and we create new opportunities for interoperability failures. While we should register code points for the various national algorithms that are functionally equivalent to the the IETF mandatory-to-implement algorithm, I'd prefer these not be on the standards track to make it clear what's recommended for interoperability. I observe RFC 4308 was necessary to address the IPsec security algorithm smorgasbord problem and documents an IPsec WG consensus to minimize the number of named suites. I question if there is a real IETF consensus to make Camellia one of the fully standardized ciphers the IETF promotes.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-11-06)
Unknown
Agree with Pasi's discuss.
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-11-05)
Unknown
Why isn't this coming via IPSECME?
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-02-26)
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown