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 |