Skip to main content

Elliptic Curve Algorithms for Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Asymmetric Key Package Content Type
draft-turner-akf-algs-update-03

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
03 (System) Notify list changed from turners@ieca.com, draft-turner-akf-algs-update@ietf.org to (None)
2011-04-11
03 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue.
2011-04-11
03 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 6162' added by Cindy Morgan
2011-04-11
03 (System) RFC published
2011-02-24
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2011-02-24
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2011-02-23
03 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2011-02-22
03 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2011-02-22
03 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2011-02-22
03 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2011-02-22
03 Amy Vezza Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-02-22
03 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup text changed
2011-02-17
03 Cindy Morgan Removed from agenda for telechat
2011-02-17
03 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation.
2011-02-17
03 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-17
03 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-16
03 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-16
03 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
Can I express my considerable concern about the wasted space on page one of this document without which you would have completed it …
[Ballot comment]
Can I express my considerable concern about the wasted space on page one of this document without which you would have completed it in only three pages.
2011-02-16
03 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-16
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Joseph Salowey.
2011-02-15
03 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-15
03 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-15
03 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-14
03 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-14
03 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-14
03 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-11
03 (System) New version available: draft-turner-akf-algs-update-03.txt
2011-02-10
03 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-10
03 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded
2011-02-10
03 Tim Polk Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-02-17
2011-02-10
03 Tim Polk State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
2011-02-10
03 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Tim Polk
2011-02-10
03 Tim Polk Ballot has been issued
2011-02-10
03 Tim Polk Created "Approve" ballot
2011-02-10
03 Tim Polk Ballot writeup text changed
2011-02-08
03 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call.
2011-02-01
03 Amanda Baber We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.
2011-01-25
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Certicom Corp's Statement about IPR related to draft-turner-akf-algs-update
2011-01-18
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey
2011-01-18
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey
2011-01-11
03 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2011-01-11
03 Amy Vezza
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: …
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: <draft-turner-akf-algs-update-02.txt> (Elliptic Curve Algorithms for Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Asymmetric Key Package Content Type) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Elliptic Curve Algorithms for Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
  Asymmetric Key Package Content Type'
  <draft-turner-akf-algs-update-02.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This document includes normative references to RFC 5753 and
draft-mcgrew-fundamental-ecc.  RFC 5753 is an Informational RFC,
and draft-mcgrew-fundamental-ecc is currently in the RFC Editor Queue
for publication as an Informational RFC.  The IESG is particularly
interested in determining whether the community considers these
documents sufficiently mature to serve as normative references
for standards track publications.

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 2011-02-08. 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-turner-akf-algs-update/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-akf-algs-update/
2011-01-11
03 Tim Polk Last Call was requested
2011-01-11
03 Tim Polk State changed to Last Call Requested from Last Call Requested.
2011-01-11
03 Tim Polk Last Call text changed
2011-01-11
03 Tim Polk Last Call was requested
2011-01-11
03 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2011-01-11
03 (System) Last call text was added
2011-01-11
03 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2011-01-11
03 Tim Polk State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested.
2011-01-11
03 Tim Polk Last Call text changed
2011-01-03
03 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?

Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> is the document Shepherd. He has
reviewed this version of the document and believes that it is ready for
forwarding to the IESG for publication.

(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?

This draft is not the product of a WG.

This draft adds support for the ECDSA and ECDH algorithms as MAYs to RFC
5959
. There's very little to review as it is an extremely short document.

(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 shepherd has no such concerns.

(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.

The only issue is that this document specifies support for the ECDSA and
ECDH algorithms as MAYs. IPR has been submitted on both RFCs to which
this draft points to for those EC algs.

(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?

There is consensus by a small group of individuals.

(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.)

There has been no threat of an appeal or any indication of extreme
discontent.

(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?

The document has verified that the draft satisfies all ID nits.

(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].

This draft does split its references into normative and informative. All
references are to RFC-level or equivalent standards with the exception
of two references. One (RFC 5753) is informative and needs to be called
out in a DOWNREF.* The other draft (draft-mcgrew-fundamental-ecc) was
recently approved by the IESG, and it too should be called out in the
IETF LC.

* RFC 5753 was recently called out in the IETF LC for
draft-turner-cms-symmetrickeypackage-algs but it seems prudent to also
do it for this draft.

(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?

The Shepherd has verified that the document has an IANA considerations
section and that it is consistent with the document (i.e., None).

(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 is no formal syntax in this document.

(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 describes conventions for using Elliptic Curve
cryptographic algorithms with SignedData and EnvelopedData to protect
the AsymmetricKeyPackage content type. Specifically, it includes
conventions necessary to implement Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman
(ECDH) with EnvelopedData and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature
Algorithm (ECDSA) with SignedData. This document extends RFC 5959.

Working Group Summary

As noted earlier, this draft is not the product of a WG. It's also very
short as there are essentially only three statements in the document:
ECDDSA is MAY, ECDH is MAY, and P-256 is a MUST if you do either.

Document Quality

There are no known implementations of this document.

Personnel

Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> is the document Shepherd.
Tim Polk <tim.polk@nist.gov> is the responsible Area Director.
2011-01-03
03 Cindy Morgan Draft added in state Publication Requested
2011-01-03
03 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Sean Turner (turners@ieca.com) is the document Shepherd.' added
2010-12-23
02 (System) New version available: draft-turner-akf-algs-update-02.txt
2010-09-16
01 (System) New version available: draft-turner-akf-algs-update-01.txt
2010-08-12
00 (System) New version available: draft-turner-akf-algs-update-00.txt