Skip to main content

The Camellia Cipher in OpenPGP
RFC 5581

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
04 (System) Notify list changed from openpgp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-openpgp-camellia@ietf.org, derek@ihtfp.com to derek@ihtfp.com, openpgp-chairs@ietf.org
2009-06-04
04 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2009-06-04
04 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5581' added by Cindy Morgan
2009-06-03
04 (System) RFC published
2009-05-13
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2009-05-13
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2009-05-13
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2009-05-13
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2009-05-11
04 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2009-05-11
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-05-11
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-05-11
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2009-05-11
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-05-08
04 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-05-07
2009-05-07
04 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2009-05-07
04 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Alexey Melnikov
2009-05-07
04 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot discuss]
2009-05-07
04 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-05-07
04 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-05-07
04 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2009-05-07
04 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2009-05-07
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2009-05-06
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-05-05
04 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2009-05-05
04 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot comment]
2009-05-05
04 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot discuss]
Lars has suggested to upgrade my comment to DISCUSS:

The document header says:

  Intended status: Standards Track

but the ballot says it …
[Ballot discuss]
Lars has suggested to upgrade my comment to DISCUSS:

The document header says:

  Intended status: Standards Track

but the ballot says it is Informational. I think the ballot is correct and I hope this is fixed before the document is published as an RFC.
2009-05-05
04 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to Discuss from No Objection by Alexey Melnikov
2009-05-04
04 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2009-05-04
04 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-05-04
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2009-04-30
04 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2009-04-30
04 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
The document header says:

  Intended status: Standards Track

but the ballot says it is Informational. I think the ballot is correct and …
[Ballot comment]
The document header says:

  Intended status: Standards Track

but the ballot says it is Informational. I think the ballot is correct and I hope this is fixed before the document is published as an RFC.
2009-04-28
04 Tim Polk [Note]: 'Derek Atkins has agreed to shepherd' added by Tim Polk
2009-04-23
04 Tim Polk State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Tim Polk
2009-04-23
04 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2009-04-14
04 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Tim Polk
2009-04-14
04 Tim Polk Ballot has been issued by Tim Polk
2009-04-14
04 Tim Polk Created "Approve" ballot
2009-04-14
04 Tim Polk Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-05-07 by Tim Polk
2009-04-03
04 Amanda Baber
IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Symmetric Key Algorithms" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/pgp-parameters/pgp-parameters.xhtml

ID | Algorithm | …
IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Symmetric Key Algorithms" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/pgp-parameters/pgp-parameters.xhtml

ID | Algorithm | Reference
TBD-1 | Camellia with 128 bit key | [RFC-openpgp-camellia-04]
TBD-2 | Camellia with 192 bit key | [RFC-openpgp-camellia-04]
TBD-3 | Camellia with 256 bit key | [RFC-openpgp-camellia-04]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document.
2009-04-02
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Jeffrey Hutzelman.
2009-03-26
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman
2009-03-26
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman
2009-03-26
04 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2009-03-26
04 Cindy Morgan State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan
2009-03-25
04 Tim Polk Last Call was requested by Tim Polk
2009-03-25
04 Tim Polk State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested::External Party by Tim Polk
2009-03-25
04 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-03-25
04 (System) Last call text was added
2009-03-25
04 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-03-25
04 Tim Polk Intended Status has been changed to Informational from Proposed Standard
2009-03-25
04 Tim Polk
Proto writeup

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
    Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document …
Proto writeup

  (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?

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
Yes

  (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?

Yes, the document was posted and commented on the openpgp mailing
list with no dissenting responses.  I believe all the key players
had a chance to review the 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?

No, I have no 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 concern is whether the document should be a Proposed Standard
or Informational RFC.  One normative reference (the Camilla Cipher)
is only published as Informational.  The IANA Registries involved
are all based on IETF Review so there is no need to publish as
Proposed Standard.  However this document was taken on as a working
group work item prior to the OpenPGP WG being shut down.

  (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?

More the former than the latter, but the document is just asking for
an IANA Number to enable OpenPGP to use the Camilla cipher.  There was
no dissent about the contents of the draft, even though there was a
(relatively) significant amount of discussion on the list about what
key and block sizes to support.

  (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.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
    document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
    http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?

It passed all the nits from when it was submitted.  The nits requirements
have changed since then and it no longer passes all the nits.  In particular
there is a warning about boilerplate and copyright year, and a complaint
about the downref for the camilla cipher.

  (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].

No, there are only normative references to three documents.
There is a downref to Informational RFC 3713

  (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?

Yes, the IANA Considerations section is fine.

  (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?

N/A

  (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 presents the necessary information to use the Camellia
  symmetric block cipher in the OpenPGP protocol.

    Working Group Summary

  There was no contention about including the cipher.  The working
  group discussion mostly focused on the set of key sizes to support.
  But in the end I believe that consensus was achieved for the set
  included in the document.

  This document was part of the OpenPGP Working Group and was a
  Work Item of that group prior to the WG being shut down.

    Document Quality

  This document is short, sweet, and to the point.  Its main goal is
  the allocation of three cipher types from the OpenPGP number space.
  It provides ample guidelines for when to use the cipher within
  OpenPGP and has a Normative Reference to the definition of the
  Cipher for implementers to use.
2008-12-08
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-openpgp-camellia-04.txt
2008-07-30
04 Tim Polk Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from None
2008-07-30
04 Tim Polk Draft Added by Tim Polk in state Publication Requested
2008-07-30
04 Tim Polk [Note]: 'Derek Atkins has agreed to shepherd; waiting on proto writeup' added by Tim Polk
2008-04-25
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-openpgp-camellia-03.txt
2008-04-14
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-openpgp-camellia-02.txt
2008-01-22
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-openpgp-camellia-01.txt
2007-11-08
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-openpgp-camellia-00.txt