Security Considerations for the SHA-0 and SHA-1 Message-Digest Algorithms
RFC 6194
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2020-01-21
|
05 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag) |
|
2017-05-16
|
05 | (System) | Changed document authors from "Lily Chen, Sean Turner, Paul Hoffman" to "Lily Chen, Sean Turner, Paul Hoffman, Tim Polk" |
|
2015-10-14
|
05 | (System) | Notify list changed from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org, tim.polk@nist.gov, turners@ieca.com, lily.chen@nist.gov, draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel |
|
2011-03-31
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue. |
|
2011-03-31
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: changed to 'RFC 6194' |
|
2011-03-29
|
05 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2011-02-11
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
|
2011-02-11
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
|
2011-02-11
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2011-02-11
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2011-02-11
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2011-02-11
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2011-02-07
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Approval announcement text regenerated |
|
2011-02-03
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
|
2011-02-03
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation. |
|
2011-02-03
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2011-02-03
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-02-03
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-05.txt |
|
2011-02-03
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-04.txt |
|
2011-02-03
|
05 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot comment] I support Adrian's DISCUSS. Reading the recommendations section and the supporting justification I rather have the feeling that the recommendations need to be … [Ballot comment] I support Adrian's DISCUSS. Reading the recommendations section and the supporting justification I rather have the feeling that the recommendations need to be 2119 capitalized and the document should be either standards track or BCP. |
|
2011-02-03
|
05 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-02-03
|
05 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-02-02
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] The first paragraph of Section 1 mentions the SHA-1 and SHA-2 family. It then goes on to say that SHA-0 and SHA-1 are … [Ballot comment] The first paragraph of Section 1 mentions the SHA-1 and SHA-2 family. It then goes on to say that SHA-0 and SHA-1 are message digest algorithms, but there is no further mention of SHA-2. I find that to be a bit of a tease. --- "HMAC" is used unexpanded. |
|
2011-02-02
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] Section 4, "Guidance" seems stronger than I expect in an Informational I-D. Not only does it tell protocol designers what they "must" and … [Ballot discuss] Section 4, "Guidance" seems stronger than I expect in an Informational I-D. Not only does it tell protocol designers what they "must" and "should" do, but it also refers to this document as a "specification". I know you would like to set some hard rules, and they are possibly necessary, but this is not the way to do it. Either tone down the language, or bring this guidance back as standards track. |
|
2011-02-02
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
|
2011-02-02
|
05 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-02-02
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-02-01
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded |
|
2011-02-01
|
05 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-31
|
05 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-30
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-25
|
05 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-25
|
05 | Peter Saint-Andre | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-02-03 |
|
2011-01-25
|
05 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Peter Saint-Andre |
|
2011-01-25
|
05 | Peter Saint-Andre | Ballot has been issued |
|
2011-01-25
|
05 | Peter Saint-Andre | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2011-01-25
|
05 | Peter Saint-Andre | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-01-25
|
05 | Peter Saint-Andre | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup. |
|
2011-01-20
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2011-01-20
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-03.txt |
|
2011-01-04
|
05 | Peter Saint-Andre | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
|
2011-01-03
|
05 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
|
2010-12-16
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy |
|
2010-12-16
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy |
|
2010-12-09
|
05 | Amanda Baber | We understand that this document does not require any IANA actions. |
|
2010-12-06
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2010-12-06
|
05 | 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-sha0-sha1-seccon-02.txt> (Security Considerations for the SHA-0 and SHA-1 Message-Digest Algorithms) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Security Considerations for the SHA-0 and SHA-1 Message-Digest Algorithms' <draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-02.txt> as an Informational RFC 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 2011-01-03. 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-sha0-sha1-seccon/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon/ |
|
2010-12-06
|
05 | Peter Saint-Andre | Last Call was requested |
|
2010-12-06
|
05 | Peter Saint-Andre | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation. |
|
2010-12-06
|
05 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2010-12-06
|
05 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2010-12-06
|
05 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2010-12-06
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-02.txt |
|
2010-12-03
|
05 | Peter Saint-Andre | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested. |
|
2010-12-02
|
05 | 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 is the document Shepherd. He believes that it is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The authors requested reviews from both the saag and cfrg list members. There is no concern about the breadth of reviews with respect to the cryptographic aspects of this draft. (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 shepherd feels there is no need for a wider review from a cryptography perspective. The IETF LC will provide a wider review for other perspectives. (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 WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. The shepherd has no additional concerns or issues that the IESG should be aware of. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? This is not the product of a WG. No one has objected to its publication. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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 appeal. (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? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. The shepherd has verified that the document 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]. The document does not split its references. All references in this informative document are normative. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations 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 suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? The document shepherd has verified that the IANA considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document. It assigns the values for SHA-1 to deprecate in the IANA Hash Function Textual Names. (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 language in this document. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document updates the security considerations for SHA-0, SHA-1, HMAC-SHA0, and HMAC-SHA1. This document provides guidance with respect to use of these algorithms. This document also updates the IANA Hash Algorithm Registry for SHA-1. Working Group Summary The discussion about this draft was mostly about the guidance provided in Section 4. Initially, it used 2119 language, but after comments the 2119 language was removed. Document Quality Prominent reviewers are noted in earlier answers and in the draft's acknowledgment section. Aspects of the draft were also discussed Dan Harkins, Nicolas Williams, and Jeffrey Hutzleman. Personnel Sean Turner is the Document Shepherd. Peter Saint-Andre is the Responsible Area Director. |
|
2010-12-02
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
|
2010-12-02
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Sean Turner (turners@ieca.com) is the document Shepherd.' added |
|
2010-11-08
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-01.txt |
|
2010-10-01
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-00.txt |