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 |