Skip to main content

HUSH: Using HUmanly memorable SHared secrets with IKEv2
draft-sheffer-ipsecme-hush-02

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
02 (System) Notify list changed from yaronf.ietf@gmail.com, sfluhrer@cisco.com, draft-sheffer-ipsecme-hush@ietf.org to (None)
2011-09-10
02 (System) Document has expired
2011-05-11
02 Sean Turner State changed to Dead from AD is watching.
2011-03-30
02 Sean Turner The proto write-up in an earlier comment is ***NOT*** for this document.
2011-03-26
02 Sean Turner State changed to AD is watching from Last Call Requested.
2011-03-26
02 Sean Turner Last Call was requested
2011-03-26
02 Sean Turner State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested.
2011-03-26
02 Sean Turner Last Call text changed
2011-03-26
02 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2011-03-26
02 (System) Last call text was added
2011-03-26
02 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2011-03-26
02 Sean Turner [NOTE] Yaron Sheffer (yaronf.ietf@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.
2011-03-26
02 Sean Turner
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
    …
(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?

Yaron Sheffer, a co-author, is Shepherd for this document. He has reviewed this version and believe it is ready for publication.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed?

The document is an individual submission, and not a product of any working group. It was previously presented to the IPsecME working group, and had a limited amount of review.

  (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?

The document is within the core focus area of the IPsecME WG. I am not aware of any particular additional community that needs to review it.

  (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 WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
        that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
        concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue.

The shepherd believes this is a problem worth solving (or he wouldn't have coauthored it...). The following IPR statement has been submitted: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1324/

  (1.e) 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?

This is an individual submission. In fact, (WG co-chair hat here) we asked the WG several times, and there was not enough interest in solving this problem, in particular because there were several competing proposed solutions.

  (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 "extreme discontent", but this is as expected with an individual submission. There are alternative proposed solutions to the same problem being published concurrently with this one.

  (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?

I have verified ID nits. There are a few minor nits referring to since-published drafts, which we will correct in the next revision. There are no formal criteria to be met.

  (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].

References are split. As mentioned, a few references will change (I-D to RFC) in the next revision.

  (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 suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. 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 are various extensions defined for the IKEv2 protocol (exchange types, notifications etc.), and the IANA considerations are appropriate. No new registries are defined.

  (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?

There are no such sections.

  (1.k) 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
        Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
        and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
        an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
        or introduction.

IKEv2 does not allow secure peer authentication when using short credential strings, i.e. passwords (other than with EAP in certain modes).  Several proposals have been made to integrate password-authentication protocols into IKE.  This document provides an adaptation of PACE (Password Authenticated Connection Establishment) to the setting of IKEv2 and demonstrates the advantages of this integration. PACE is a novel mutual authentication protocol, based on a modified Diffie-Hellman exchange, and has strong and formally proven security properties.

    Working Group Summary

        Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
        example, was there controversy about particular points or
        were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
        rough?

This document is not a product of any working group.

    Document Quality

        Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
        significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
        implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
        merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
        e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
        conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
        there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
        what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
        review, on what date was the request posted?

We are not aware of implementations of this protocol.
2011-03-26
02 Sean Turner Draft added in state Publication Requested
2011-03-09
02 (System) New version available: draft-sheffer-ipsecme-hush-02.txt
2010-09-13
01 (System) New version available: draft-sheffer-ipsecme-hush-01.txt
2010-05-25
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Yaron Sheffer's Statement about IPR related to draft-sheffer-ipsecme-hush-00 belonging to AT&T Bell Laboratories (possibly Alcatel-Lucent today)
2010-03-22
00 (System) New version available: draft-sheffer-ipsecme-hush-00.txt