Skip to main content

Using ChaCha20-Poly1305 Authenticated Encryption in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
RFC 8103

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-01-21
06 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag)
2018-05-10
06 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Errata tag)
2017-03-06
06 Matthew Miller Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Matthew Miller. Sent review to list.
2017-02-28
06 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8103, changed abstract to 'This document describes the conventions for using ChaCha20-Poly1305 Authenticated Encryption in …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8103, changed abstract to 'This document describes the conventions for using ChaCha20-Poly1305 Authenticated Encryption in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS).  ChaCha20-Poly1305 is an authenticated encryption algorithm constructed of the ChaCha stream cipher and Poly1305 authenticator.', changed pages to 9, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2017-02-28, changed IESG state to RFC Published)
2017-02-28
06 (System) RFC published
2017-02-27
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8103">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48
2017-02-26
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8103">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR
2017-02-13
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2017-01-26
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2017-01-25
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2017-01-25
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2017-01-24
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors
2017-01-23
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2017-01-23
06 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2017-01-23
06 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2017-01-23
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2017-01-23
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2017-01-23
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2017-01-23
06 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2017-01-23
06 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2017-01-19
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation
2017-01-19
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2017-01-19
06 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-06.txt
2017-01-19
06 (System) New version approved
2017-01-19
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com>, curdle-chairs@ietf.org
2017-01-19
06 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2017-01-19
05 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2017-01-18
05 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2017-01-18
05 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2017-01-18
05 Niclas Comstedt Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Niclas Comstedt. Sent review to list.
2017-01-18
05 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2017-01-18
05 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2017-01-18
05 Sabrina Tanamal IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2017-01-18
05 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
As mentioned by Niclas in his OPS DIR review.

- Section 3, change the 2nd must to all capitals in the following sentence …
[Ballot comment]
As mentioned by Niclas in his OPS DIR review.

- Section 3, change the 2nd must to all capitals in the following sentence
"The AlgorithmIdentifier parameters field MUST be present, and the parameters field must contain a AEADChaCha20Poly1305Nonce:”
2017-01-18
05 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2017-01-17
05 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2017-01-17
05 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2017-01-17
05 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2017-01-17
05 Matthew Miller Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Matthew Miller. Sent review to list.
2017-01-17
05 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2017-01-16
05 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2017-01-16
05 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2017-01-16
05 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2017-01-12
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller
2017-01-12
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller
2017-01-10
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt
2017-01-10
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt
2017-01-09
05 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-01-06
05 Stephen Farrell Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-01-19
2017-01-06
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2017-01-06
05 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-05.txt
2017-01-06
05 (System) New version approved
2017-01-06
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com>, curdle-chairs@ietf.org
2017-01-06
05 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2016-12-24
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Niclas Comstedt.
2016-12-16
04 Stephen Farrell Ballot has been issued
2016-12-16
04 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-12-16
04 Stephen Farrell Created "Approve" ballot
2016-12-16
04 Stephen Farrell Ballot writeup was changed
2016-12-16
04 Stephen Farrell IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2016-12-16
04 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2016-12-12
04 Sabrina Tanamal IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2016-12-12
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2016-12-12
04 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the SMI Security for S/MIME Algorithms (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.3) subregistry of the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

a single, new registration will be made as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: id-alg-AEADChaCha20Poly1305
References: [ RFC-to-be ]

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Second, in the SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0) subregistry also in the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

a single, new registration will be made as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: id-mod-CMS-AEADChaCha20Poly1305
References: [ RFC-to-be ]

As before, because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

The IANA Services Operator understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI
2016-12-11
04 Yoav Nir Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Yoav Nir. Sent review to list.
2016-12-08
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yoav Nir
2016-12-08
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yoav Nir
2016-12-05
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller
2016-12-05
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller
2016-12-02
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt
2016-12-02
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt
2016-12-02
04 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2016-12-02
04 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: curdle@ietf.org, curdle-chairs@ietf.org, daniel.migault@ericsson.com, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: curdle@ietf.org, curdle-chairs@ietf.org, daniel.migault@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305@ietf.org, "Daniel Migault" <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-04.txt> (Using ChaCha20-Poly1305 Authenticated Encryption in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the CURves, Deprecating and a Little
more Encryption WG (curdle) to consider the following document:
- 'Using ChaCha20-Poly1305 Authenticated Encryption in the Cryptographic
  Message Syntax (CMS)'
  <draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-04.txt> as Proposed Standard

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 2016-12-16. 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.

Abstract


  This document describes the conventions for using ChaCha20-Poly1305
  Authenticated Encryption in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS).
  ChaCha20-Poly1305 is an authenticated encryption algorithm
  constructed of the ChaCha stream cipher and Poly1305 authenticator.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc7539: ChaCha20 and Poly1305 for IETF Protocols (Informational - Independent Submission Editor stream)
Note that some of these references may already be listed in the acceptable Downref Registry.


2016-12-02
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-12-02
04 Stephen Farrell Last call was requested
2016-12-02
04 Stephen Farrell Ballot approval text was generated
2016-12-02
04 Stephen Farrell Ballot writeup was generated
2016-12-02
04 Stephen Farrell IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2016-12-02
04 Stephen Farrell Last call announcement was generated
2016-12-01
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2016-12-01
04 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-04.txt
2016-12-01
04 (System) New version approved
2016-12-01
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com>, curdle-chairs@ietf.org
2016-12-01
04 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2016-11-24
03 Stephen Farrell IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2016-11-24
03 Stephen Farrell IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2016-11-02
03 Daniel Migault
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

The requested type of RFC is Standards Track. This is the appropriated type as the document describes how to use ChaCha20-Poly1305 Authenticated Encryption in the Cryptographic Message Syntax. The type is indicated in the header of the document. 


(2) 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

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.

  This document describes the conventions for using ChaCha20-Poly1305
  Authenticated Encryption in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS).
  ChaCha20-Poly1305 is an authenticated encryption algorithm
  constructed of the ChaCha stream cipher and Poly1305 authenticator.
 
Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

  The draft had no controversy. Reviews revealed minor nits that were corrected.
 
Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

  CMS is already deployed, and the draft describes how to use a specific authenticated encryption algorithm which is expected to be used in the future. The purpose of the draft is to keep CMS up to date with security, and thus deployed. Reviews did not end with important changes in the protocol.
 
Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

  The Document Shepherd is Daniel Migault. The responsible Area Director is Stephen Farrell.
 
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  The Document Shepherd reviewed the document and only raised minor nits.
 
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  The document was reviewed by 4 persons: Daniel Migault, Rich Salz, Jim Schaad, and Peter Gutman. None of them revealed anything other than editing comments. The author Russ Housley has also significant experience on CMS. So I believe the document has received significant reviews and is ready.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  No. The scope of the document is limited to CMS.
 
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

  I have no issue with the document. It is necessary to update existing protocol with up-to-date cryptographic protocol. This is the scope of the CURDLE WG, and this document addresses this goal for CMS.
 
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

The author confirms there is no IPR disclosure.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

Russ Husley confirmed there is no IPR disclosure.

(9) 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? 

The consensus is more the strong concurrence of the few individual. I believe the remaining of the group remain silent as there would be little place for controversy. The scope of the work is well understood by the WG.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

The output of ldnit is as follows:

** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7539 (ref.
    'FORIETF')

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'X680'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'X690'


RFC7539 describes the defines the ChaCha20 stream cipher as well as the use of the Poly1305 authenticator, both as stand-alone algorithms and as a "combined mode", or Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) algorithm. This document does not introduce any new crypto, but is meant to serve as a stable reference and an implementation guide.  It is a product of the Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG).

This document is from the IRTF which does not define standards. The current document describes the use of this algorithm. 

The Downref is justified by RFC3967 as it falls into the following case:
  o  A standards track document may need to refer to a protocol or
      algorithm developed by an external body but modified, adapted, or
      profiled by an IETF informational RFC,
                 

X680 and X690 are non IETF standard but ITU-T standards. CMS values are generated using ASN.1 [X680], which uses the Basic Encoding Rules (BER) and the Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER) [X690].
are necessary for the integration of chacha30-polyy1305 into CMS.

 
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document does not need external formal reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

See 11.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  IANA is requested to add the following entry in the SMI Security for
  S/MIME Algorithms (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.3) registry:

      TBD1  id-alg-AEADChaCha20Poly1305      [This Document]

  IANA is requested to add the following entry in the SMI Security for
  S/MIME Module Identifier (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0) registry:

      TBD2  id-mod-CMS-AEADChaCha20Poly1305  [This Document]

It is consistent with the document which describes the usage a new algorithm as well as its associated module.
Registries are defined in rfc7107 and the request described in the document are appropriated.
The newly created IANA registries are identified and detailed in the document. They also have an appropriated name.
 
                 
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#security-smime
mentions Russ Housley (primary), Jim Schaad (secondary) as expert.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

The document provides ASN1 syntax. I have not checked the syntax as I do not have found tools to do so.
2016-11-02
03 Daniel Migault Responsible AD changed to Stephen Farrell
2016-11-02
03 Daniel Migault IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2016-11-02
03 Daniel Migault IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2016-11-02
03 Daniel Migault IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-11-01
03 Daniel Migault Changed document writeup
2016-11-01
03 Daniel Migault Changed document writeup
2016-10-28
03 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-03.txt
2016-10-28
03 (System) New version approved
2016-10-28
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com>, curdle-chairs@ietf.org
2016-10-28
03 Russ Housley Uploaded new revision
2016-10-26
02 Daniel Migault Notification list changed to "Daniel Migault" <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>
2016-10-26
02 Daniel Migault Document shepherd changed to Daniel Migault
2016-10-26
02 Daniel Migault IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2016-09-22
02 Rich Salz wrong click :)
2016-09-22
02 Rich Salz Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from Internet Standard
2016-09-22
02 Rich Salz IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2016-09-22
02 Rich Salz Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-09-22
02 Rich Salz Intended Status changed to Internet Standard from None
2016-09-22
02 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-02.txt
2016-09-22
02 Russ Housley New version approved
2016-09-22
02 Russ Housley Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com>, curdle-chairs@ietf.org
2016-09-22
02 (System) Uploaded new revision
2016-09-07
01 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-01.txt
2016-05-04
00 Rich Salz This document now replaces draft-housley-cms-chacha20-poly1305 instead of None
2016-05-04
00 Russ Housley New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-00.txt