Skip to main content

Suite B in Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME)
RFC 6318

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2018-08-01
01 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed standardization level to Historic)
2018-05-29
01 Amy Vezza New status of Historic approved by the IESG
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-suiteb-to-historic/
2015-10-14
01 (System) Notify list changed from housley@vigilsec.com, draft-housley-rfc5008bis@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
01 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Jari Arkko
2012-08-22
01 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu
2011-06-30
01 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue.
2011-06-30
01 (System) RFC published
2011-05-02
01 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2011-04-26
01 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2011-04-26
01 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2011-04-26
01 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2011-04-26
01 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2011-04-26
01 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2011-04-26
01 Cindy Morgan Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-04-26
01 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup text changed
2011-04-25
01 Sean Turner Ballot writeup text changed
2011-04-25
01 Sean Turner Ballot writeup text changed
2011-04-25
01 Sean Turner Ballot writeup text changed
2011-04-25
01 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2011-04-25
01 (System) New version available: draft-housley-rfc5008bis-01.txt
2011-04-25
01 Jari Arkko I agreed with Russ on what the edits should be. Waiting for a new document version.
2011-04-14
01 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Joseph Salowey.
2011-04-14
01 Cindy Morgan Removed from agenda for telechat
2011-04-14
01 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation.
2011-04-14
01 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-13
01 Sean Turner Ballot writeup text changed
2011-04-13
01 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
This is a fine document otherwise, but I did get a headache from trying to understand what *this* document specifies about behaviour and …
[Ballot discuss]
This is a fine document otherwise, but I did get a headache from trying to understand what *this* document specifies about behaviour and whether it is exactly the same or different from what existing RFCs have already specified.

For instance, in Section 3 there is a statement about parameters field not being allowed with SHA256 and SHA384:

  When either the ecdsa-with-SHA256 or the ecdsa-with-SHA384 algorithm
  identifier is used, the AlgorithmIdentifier parameters field MUST be
  absent.

However, I'm unable to correlate this with RFC 5480 which just has an ASN.1 comment:

  -- ECDSA with SHA-384
  -- Parameters are ABSENT

In Section 2 the wording of some of the MUST statements is different than in RFC 5754. I think the semantics are the same. But I did have to stare it for a while to verify, and I'm still not sure.

There are more examples, e.g., Section 4.3.

My general point is that we should really avoid repeating normative language from other RFCs, unless we truly intend to make a change and have the new document be the permanent source of that normative language. In general, a suite definition document should not need to define any new behaviour or formats, at most it should just define some new IANA numbers. Why are we doing it here with this document?
2011-04-13
01 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-04-13
01 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]
(1) The document does say "united states" in a few places, but maybe that'd be better included in the title as well.

(2) …
[Ballot comment]
(1) The document does say "united states" in a few places, but maybe that'd be better included in the title as well.

(2) The KE in "KE sets" doesn't seem to be expanded anywhere.
2011-04-13
01 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-13
01 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-12
01 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-12
01 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-12
01 Sean Turner Ballot writeup text changed
2011-04-12
01 Sean Turner Ballot writeup text changed
2011-04-12
01 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-04-12
01 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot discuss]
Taking upon the issue raised by Stewart in his COMMENT - should not this document be Last Called with the IPR Disclosure explicitely …
[Ballot discuss]
Taking upon the issue raised by Stewart in his COMMENT - should not this document be Last Called with the IPR Disclosure explicitely mentioned?
2011-04-12
01 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-04-11
01 Stewart Bryant [Ballot comment]
This document has an IPR disclosure against it, but I did not see that called out in the IETF Last Call notice.
2011-04-11
01 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-10
01 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-10
01 Sean Turner State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
2011-04-08
01 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded
2011-04-07
01 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-07
01 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document.

I note that idnits says:
  -- The draft header indicates that this …
[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document.

I note that idnits says:
  -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC5008, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
2011-04-07
01 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-01
01 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2011-04-01
01 Sean Turner Ballot has been issued
2011-04-01
01 Sean Turner Created "Approve" ballot
2011-04-01
01 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call.
2011-03-11
01 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey
2011-03-11
01 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey
2011-03-08
01 Amanda Baber We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.
2011-03-04
01 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2011-03-04
01 Cindy Morgan
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-housley-rfc5008bis-00.txt> (Suite B in Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME)) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Suite B in Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME)'
  <draft-housley-rfc5008bis-00.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 2011-04-01. 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-housley-rfc5008bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-rfc5008bis/

2011-03-04
01 Sean Turner Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-04-14
2011-03-04
01 Sean Turner Status Date has been changed to 2011-03-04 from None
2011-03-04
01 Sean Turner Last Call was requested
2011-03-04
01 Sean Turner State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested.
2011-03-04
01 Sean Turner Last Call text changed
2011-03-04
01 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2011-03-04
01 (System) Last call text was added
2011-03-04
01 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2011-03-04
01 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?

Russ Housley is the Document Shepherd and co-author.


(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?

The document is intended for publication as an Informational RFC.
The S/MIME mail list was asked to review, and no comments were
received.


(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 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.

No concerns.


(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?

This document explains the requirements for an S/MIME implementation
to be considered "Suite B conformant". There is strong consensus
from the people that are defining "Suite B".


(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?

Yes. ID-Nits raised one very minor issue. There is no need for
any formal review from the MIB Doctors or any other such group.

This is the one issue raised by ID-Nits:

-- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC5008,
but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

I am pleased to correct should a revision be needed, otherwise an
RFC Editor Note is sufficient.


(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].

References are split. All referenced documents are already RFCs.


(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
[RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has
the Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

No IANA actions are required.


(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?

ASN.1 fragments are all copied from other documents.


(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

The United States Government has published guidelines for
"NSA Suite B Cryptography", which defines cryptographic
algorithm policy for national security applications. This
document defines a profile of S/MIME which is conformant with
Suite B.

Working Group Summary

This document is not the product of any IETF working group.

Document Quality

This document explains the requirements for as S/MIME
implementation to be considered "Suite B conformant".
There is strong consensus from the people that are
defining "Suite B".
2011-03-04
01 Cindy Morgan Draft added in state Publication Requested
2011-03-04
01 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Russ Housley (housley@vigilsec.com) is the document shepherd.' added
2011-03-01
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Certicom Corp's Statement about IPR related to draft-housley-rfc5008bis
2011-02-10
00 (System) New version available: draft-housley-rfc5008bis-00.txt