Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)
RFC 4305

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
02 (System) Notify list changed from byfraser@cisco.com, tytso@mit.edu to (None)
2012-08-22
02 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Thomas Narten
2005-12-27
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2005-12-27
02 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 4305' added by Amy Vezza
2005-12-22
02 (System) RFC published
2005-01-03
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2004-12-23
02 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2004-12-23
02 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2004-12-23
02 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2004-12-22
02 Russ Housley State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup by Russ Housley
2004-08-24
02 Russ Housley State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Russ Housley
2004-08-24
02 Russ Housley
This document ias approved.  It should not be publlished until draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-v3 and draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis are also approved.  Hopefully, this document will not be waiting ...
2004-08-24
02 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] Position for Thomas Narten has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Thomas Narten
2004-08-23
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-ah-algorithms-02.txt
2004-08-20
02 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-08-19
2004-08-19
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2004-08-19
02 Thomas Narten
[Ballot comment]
s/IPSEC/IPsec/ throughout.

s/mandatory to implement algorithms/mandatory-to-implement algorithms/

>                a MAY or worse ...
2004-08-19
02 Thomas Narten
[Ballot discuss]
It would be good to include a paragraph in the introduction saying
"what's changed" relative to existing IPsec RFCs. I.e., this ...
2004-08-19
02 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] Position for Thomas Narten has been changed to Discuss from Undefined by Thomas Narten
2004-08-19
02 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] Position for Margaret Wasserman has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Margaret Wasserman
2004-08-19
02 Thomas Narten
[Ballot comment]
It might be good to include a paragraph in the introduction saying
"what's changed". I.e., this document presumably updates earlier
recommendations ...
2004-08-19
02 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Thomas Narten by Thomas Narten
2004-08-19
02 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens
2004-08-19
02 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen
2004-08-19
02 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin
2004-08-19
02 Harald Alvestrand
[Ballot comment]
Reviewed by Brian Carpenter, Gen-ART
Personally, I think the use of SHOULD+ and MUST- are good additions to the repertoire of "conformance verbs ...
2004-08-19
02 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand
2004-08-18
02 Margaret Cullen
[Ballot comment]
Ideally the mandatory to implement algorithm of tomorrow should
  already be available in most implementations of IPSEC by the time it
  ...
2004-08-18
02 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman
2004-08-18
02 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner
2004-08-16
02 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson
2004-08-16
02 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie
2004-08-14
02 Steven Bellovin
[Ballot comment]
3.1.1 is actually rather odd -- there are no mandated confidentiality algorithms defined that are both required today and expected to be ...
2004-08-14
02 Steven Bellovin [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Steve Bellovin by Steve Bellovin
2004-07-19
02 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck
2004-07-18
02 Russ Housley Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-08-19 by Russ Housley
2004-07-18
02 Russ Housley State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Russ Housley
2004-07-18
02 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Russ Housley
2004-07-18
02 Russ Housley Ballot has been issued by Russ Housley
2004-07-18
02 Russ Housley Created "Approve" ballot
2004-07-16
02 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2004-07-08
02 Michelle Cotton IANA Last Call Comments:
We understand this document to have NO IANA Actions.
2004-06-23
02 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2004-06-23
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2004-06-23
02 Russ Housley State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Russ Housley
2004-06-23
02 Russ Housley Last Call was requested by Russ Housley
2004-06-23
02 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2004-06-23
02 (System) Last call text was added
2004-06-23
02 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2004-05-26
02 Russ Housley State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Russ Housley
2004-05-20
02 Russ Housley Draft Added by Russ Housley
2004-01-13
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-ah-algorithms-01.txt
2003-12-18
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-ah-algorithms-00.txt