IP Authentication Header
RFC 4302
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-01-21 |
11 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag) |
2012-08-22 |
11 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Bert Wijnen |
2012-08-22 |
11 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Jon Peterson |
2005-12-27 |
11 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
2005-12-27 |
11 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 4302' added by Amy Vezza |
2005-12-22 |
11 | (System) | RFC published |
2005-03-21 |
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis-11.txt |
2005-01-12 |
11 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2005-01-10 |
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2005-01-10 |
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2005-01-10 |
11 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2005-01-07 |
11 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2005-01-07 |
11 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2005-01-06 |
2005-01-06 |
11 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie |
2005-01-06 |
11 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin |
2005-01-06 |
11 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot comment] The security considerations section is weak. Ideally it would be better. However I cannot think of things that need to be added that … [Ballot comment] The security considerations section is weak. Ideally it would be better. However I cannot think of things that need to be added that would affect what people do in practice. |
2005-01-06 |
11 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman |
2005-01-06 |
11 | Harald Alvestrand | Review by Elwyn Davies, Gen-ART Summary: This document is essentially ready for recycling at Proposed Standard. There are a small number of nits that need … Review by Elwyn Davies, Gen-ART Summary: This document is essentially ready for recycling at Proposed Standard. There are a small number of nits that need to be addressed, especially with respect to references and terminology, but it seems in good shape. Review: The document appears to be essentially ready as a recycled Proposed Standard (updating RFC2402). There are a small number of nits that should be addressed: Throughout: Should we be using octets instead of bytes? Section 1 and Informative Refs: The document is self-referential! [Ken-AH] is {this document}. Section 1: It would be useful to point out that the document uses the terminology defined in the Security Architecture. With this in mind, one or two terms (especially 'next layer protocol' could be capitalized to emphasise that they are defined in the Security Architecture). Section 2: In the figure: s/Integrity Check Value-ICV (variable)/ Integrity Check Value-ICV (variable length)/ Also I found the table a little confusing on first reading.. takes some time to realise that that the ESN and ICV padding are not trailers but 'virtual fields' which are not transmitted. Maybe this could be emphasised a little earlier. Section 2.5, para 1: s/anti-reply/anti-replay/ References: - Arguably, the IKE ref [HC98] is normative - IKEv2 should be referenced with the same same status as IKE - The IPv6 Flow Label RFC should be referenced (normative) - Arguably, the DiffServ [NBBB98] and ECN [RBF01] refs are normative Appendix A2: It occurred to me when I read about mutable options in IPv6 Destination Headers that these do not make much sense for end-to-end Destination Headers and indeed there is a degree of inconsistency between Section 3.1.1 (where at least some of the destination headers are said to be immutable) and the Appendix statement, quoting RFC2460. I guess Destination Options associated with routing headers could be mutable. Some weasel words might be useful. Appendix A2: The main body (Section 3.1.1 etc) refer in general to IPv6 Routing Headers. The Appendix calls out explicitly Type 0 Routing Headers... however things have moved on and there is the Type 2 Routing Header for Mobile IPv6 now. In practice, I would have thought that the same arguments should apply to any routing header (regarding predictability at the ultimate destination). I think this could be safely generalised. Meta-criticism (General whinge): AH (and ESP) define the length of the 'extension header' in IPv6 packets in 32 bit units instead of the default 64 bit unit. The inconsistency in the L part of TLV format of IPv6 extension headers is a blot on the landscape of IPv6, making it harder for IPv6 hardware to work fast, and increasing the complexity of software, as well as making it difficult to skip over headers (see v6ops Security Overview draft). Fragmentation headers are also part of the problem. It is almost surely too late to do anything about this, but it should have been picked up in earlier reviews (had they been being done!) |
2005-01-06 |
11 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot comment] Reviewed by Elwyn Davies, Gen-ART Review in document comments; they seem as if they would have made the document better if addressed, but … [Ballot comment] Reviewed by Elwyn Davies, Gen-ART Review in document comments; they seem as if they would have made the document better if addressed, but this has already been around the bush once. Not worth holding it for these. |
2005-01-05 |
11 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2005-01-05 |
11 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Comments: We understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2005-01-03 |
11 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jon Peterson has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Jon Peterson |
2005-01-03 |
11 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
2004-12-22 |
11 | Russ Housley | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-01-06 by Russ Housley |
2004-12-22 |
11 | Russ Housley | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed by Russ Housley |
2004-12-08 |
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis-10.txt |
2004-10-27 |
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis-09.txt |
2004-10-06 |
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis-08.txt |
2004-03-24 |
11 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bert Wijnen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Bert Wijnen |
2004-03-02 |
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis-07.txt |
2004-02-16 |
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis-06.txt |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Amy Vezza | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Amy Vezza |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Amy Vezza | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2003-10-02 by Amy Vezza |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot comment] There is a normative reference to the IPv6 specification (presumably because this document references the IPv6 header fields), but there is no normative … [Ballot comment] There is a normative reference to the IPv6 specification (presumably because this document references the IPv6 header fields), but there is no normative reference to IPv4. I think that there should be. |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot discuss] See my Comment - since the "algorithms" document is not currently available, we should block this document until algorithms becomes available. |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] Position has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Jon Peterson |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] Position has been changed to Yes from No Objection by Jon Peterson |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Ned Freed | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ned Freed |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Thomas Narten |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Allison Mankin |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Margaret Wasserman |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Randy Bush | [Ballot Position Update] Position has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Randy Bush |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Randy Bush | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded by Randy Bush |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Bill Fenner |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Amy Vezza | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Amy Vezza |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Steven Bellovin | [Ballot discuss] Section 6 can't be evaluated until 2401bis shows up. |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot discuss] - Is this a doc going to OBSOLETE 2402? If so, then I believe we want the abstract to say so (so … [Ballot discuss] - Is this a doc going to OBSOLETE 2402? If so, then I believe we want the abstract to say so (so that it is very clear). - has citation in abstract - It says (in abstract): Comments should be sent to Stephen Kent (kent@bbn.com). Mmm... not to ipsec mailing list? - missing IPR section - Strange disclaimer on page 21 (do we do such things?): Disclaimer The views and specification here are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of their employers. The authors and their employers specifically disclaim responsibility for any problems arising from correct or incorrect implementation or use of this specification. |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] Position has been changed to Discuss from Undefined by Bert Wijnen |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded by Bert Wijnen |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Amy Vezza | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Amy Vezza |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot comment] If mandatory-to-implement algorithms have been moved out of 2402bis into a separate RFC (per Section 7 and the 2nd paragraph of Section 5), … [Ballot comment] If mandatory-to-implement algorithms have been moved out of 2402bis into a separate RFC (per Section 7 and the 2nd paragraph of Section 5), it might be nice to have a normative reference to that separate RFC in 2402bis. |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Amy Vezza | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Amy Vezza |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Amy Vezza | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Amy Vezza |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Amy Vezza | Ballot has been issued by Amy Vezza |
2003-10-02 |
11 | Amy Vezza | Created "Approve" ballot |
2003-10-02 |
11 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2003-10-02 |
11 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2003-10-02 |
11 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2003-09-26 |
11 | Russ Housley | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Russ Housley |
2003-09-26 |
11 | Russ Housley | Status date has been changed to 2003-09-26 from 2003-08-04 |
2003-09-26 |
11 | Russ Housley | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2003-10-02 by Russ Housley |
2003-09-25 |
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis-05.txt |
2003-09-22 |
11 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system |
2003-09-08 |
11 | Michael Lee | Last call sent |
2003-09-08 |
11 | Michael Lee | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Michael Lee |
2003-08-18 |
11 | Russ Housley | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Russ Housley |
2003-08-04 |
11 | Russ Housley | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Russ Housley |
2003-08-04 |
11 | Russ Housley | Draft Added by Russ Housley |
2003-07-25 |
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis-04.txt |
2003-04-08 |
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis-03.txt |
2003-03-05 |
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis-02.txt |
2002-07-02 |
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis-01.txt |
2002-03-05 |
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis-00.txt |