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 |