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 |