Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)
RFC 8247

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8247, changed title to 'Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)', changed abstract to 'The IPsec series of protocols makes use of various cryptographic algorithms in order to provide security services.  The Internet Key Exchange (IKE) protocol is used to negotiate the IPsec Security Association (IPsec SA) parameters, such as which algorithms should be used.  To ensure interoperability between different implementations, it is necessary to specify a set of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance to ensure that there is at least one algorithm that all implementations support.  This document updates RFC 7296 and obsoletes RFC 4307 in defining the current algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance for IKEv2, and does minor cleaning up of the IKEv2 IANA registry.  This document does not update the algorithms used for packet encryption using IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP).', changed pages to 19, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2017-09-13, changed IESG state to RFC Published, created obsoletes relation between draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis and RFC 4307, created updates relation between draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis and RFC 7296)

[Ballot comment]
(oops, meant to ballot "yes". Fixed now.)

Section 2.1, 2nd to last paragraph says that ENCR_3DES has been downgraded to SHOULD NOT. But both the table in this section, and the change table later in the draft say MAY.

[Ballot comment]
Section 2.1, 2nd to last paragraph says that ENCR_3DES has been downgraded to SHOULD NOT. But both the table in this section, and the change table later in the draft say MAY.

[Ballot comment]
Here is Sue Hares' OPS DIR feedback:
Status:  Read for publication with editorial nits (see below)



General Comment:  Thank you for this interesting, informative, and well-written draft.  My editorial nits are just places you might improve the clarity of the draft.





Sue Hares



=======================



Editorial Nits:



#1 – Section 1.3, p 4, paragraph 1



Old/The recommendations of this document mostly target IKEv2 implementers

  as implementations need to meet both high security expectations as

  well as high interoperability between various vendors and with

  different versions.  /



New: /The recommendations of this document mostly target IKEv2 implementation

  as implementations need to meet both high security expectations as

  well as high interoperability between various vendors and with

  different versions.  /



Note: Either implementation as implementations

        Or  implementers as implementers need to create implementations





#2 – section 1.3, p. 4,paragraph 2





3) Old/ This document does not give any recommendations for the use of

  algorithms, it only gives implementation recommendations for

  implementations./



  New /  This document does not give any recommendations for the use of

  algorithms, it only gives implementation recommendations regarding

  implementations./



#3 section 3.1, p. 6 , paragraph 2, starting with “ENCR_CHACHA20_POLY1305”



  Please expand the abbreviation CRFG.  I believe this this is the first use of the abbreviation.



#4 section 3.4, p 9-10,  several paragraphs in here did not provide the final status



4.a p9, last paragraph on page


old/  Group 14 or 2048-bit MODP Group is raised from SHOULD+ in RFC4307 as

  a replacement for 1024-bit MODP Group. /



new/ Group 14 or 2048-bit MODP Group is raised from SHOULD+ in RFC4307 to MUST as

  a replacement for 1024-bit MODP Group. /





4.b p. 9, first paragraph on page, line 1



Old/  Group 19 or 256-bit random ECP group was not specified in RFC4307, as

  this group were not defined at that time.  Group 19 is widely

  implemented and considered secure./



New /  Group 19 or 256-bit random ECP group was not specified in RFC4307, as

  this group were not defined at that time.  Group 19 is widely

  implemented and considered secure so Group 19’s status is SHOULD.



4.c p.9, paragraph 4, line

Old/  Group 1 or 768-bit MODP Group was not mentioned in RFC4307 and so its

  status was MAY.  It can be broken within hours using cheap of-the-

  shelves hardware.  It provides no security whatsoever./



New/ Group 1 or 768-bit MODP Group was not mentioned in RFC4307 and so its

  status was MAY.  It can be broken within hours using cheap of-the-

  shelves hardware.  It provides no security whatsoever. Therefore, its

  current stsatus is MUST not.



#5 section 4.1, p 12, paragraph 2-4: Final status not indicatd



5.a: paragraph 2



Old/  Shared Key Message Integrity Code is widely deployed and mandatory to

  implement in the IKEv2 in the RFC7296./



  New:/ Shared Key Message Integrity Code is widely deployed and mandatory to

  implement in the IKEv2 in the RFC7296. The status is MUST. /



5.b paragraph 3



  Old/

  ECDSA based Authentication Methods are also expected to be downgraded

  as it does not provide hash function agility.  Instead, ECDSA (like

  RSA) is expected to be performed using the generic Digital Signature

  method. /



  New/

  ECDSA based Authentication Methods are also expected to be downgraded

  as it does not provide hash function agility.  Instead, ECDSA (like

  RSA) is expected to be performed using the generic Digital Signature

  method. ECADSA-based Authentication Methods status is “SHOULD”. /







5.c. paragraph 4



Old:/  DSS Digital Signature is bound to SHA-1 and has the same level of

  security as 1024-bit RSA.  It is expected to be downgraded to MUST

  NOT in the future./





New/

  DSS Digital Signature is bound to SHA-1 and has the same level of

  security as 1024-bit RSA.  It is currently at SHOULD NOT, but

  it is expected to be downgraded to MUST

  NOT in the future./





5.d paragraph 5



Old/  Digital Signature [RFC7427] is expected to be promoted as it provides

  hash function, signature format and algorithm agility./



New/  Digital Signature [RFC7427] is expected to be promoted as it provides

  hash function, signature format and algorithm agility. Its current status is SHOULD.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-15.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 is a single action which we must complete.

In the Transform Type 1 - Encryption Algorithm Transform IDs subregistry of the Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/

a series of changes are to be made to the registry.

The existing entires entries for the AES-GCM cipher [RFC4106] and the Camellia cipher [RFC5529] are to be renamed as follows:

+------------+---------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Number | Old name | New name |
+------------+---------------------------------------+----------------------+
| 18 | AES-GCM with a 8 octet ICV | ENCR_AES_GCM_8 |
| 19 | AES-GCM with a 12 octet ICV | ENCR_AES_GCM_12 |
| 20 | AES-GCM with a 16 octet ICV | ENCR_AES_GCM_16 |
| 25 | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM with an 8-octet ICV | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_8 |
| 26 | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM with a 12-octet ICV | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_12 |
| 27 | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM with a 16-octet ICV | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_16 |
+------------+---------------------------------------+----------------------+

For the entries for numbers 18, 19, and 20 { RFC-to-be ] is to be added to the existing reference for both the ESP Reference and the IKEv2 Reference.

For the entries for numbers 25, 26 and 27 [ RFC-to-be ] is to be added to the existing reference for the ESP Reference but not the IKEv2 Reference.

The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action 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

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org, Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com, david.waltermire@nist.gov, "David Waltermire"
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for IKEv2) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Security Maintenance and
Extensions WG (ipsecme) to consider the following document:
- 'Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for IKEv2'
  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 2017-01-31. 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


  The IPsec series of protocols makes use of various cryptographic
  algorithms in order to provide security services.  The Internet Key
  Exchange (IKE) protocol is used to negotiate the IPsec Security
  Association (IPsec SA) parameters, such as which algorithms should be
  used.  To ensure interoperability between different implementations,
  it is necessary to specify a set of algorithm implementation
  requirements and usage guidance to ensure that there is at least one
  algorithm that all implementations support.  This document updates
  RFC 7296 and obsoletes RFC 4307 in defining the current algorithm
  implementation requirements and usage guidance for IKEv2, and does
  minor cleaning up of the IKEv2 IANA registry.  This document does not
  update the algorithms used for packet encryption using IPsec
  Encapsulated Security Payload (ESP).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis/ballot/


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

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-15. 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 Transform Type 1 - Encryption Algorithm Transform IDs subregistry of the Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2) Parameters located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/

six existing registry entries are to be renamed as follows:

+---------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Old name                              | New name            |
+---------------------------------------+----------------------+
| AES-GCM with a 8 octet ICV            | ENCR_AES_GCM_8      |
| AES-GCM with a 12 octet ICV          | ENCR_AES_GCM_12      |
| AES-GCM with a 16 octet ICV          | ENCR_AES_GCM_16      |
| ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM with an 8-octet ICV | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_8  |
| ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM with a 12-octet ICV | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_12 |
| ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM with a 16-octet ICV | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_16 |
+---------------------------------------+----------------------+

Second, for the six renamed registry entries above, IANA understands that the reference [ RFC-to-be ] is to be added to each existing reference for each entry, in each column that currently contains a reference. For values 25-27, the "IKEv2 Reference" field will remain blank.

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,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org, Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com, david.waltermire@nist.gov, "David Waltermire"
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for IKEv2) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Security Maintenance and
Extensions WG (ipsecme) to consider the following document:
- 'Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for IKEv2'
  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 2016-12-30. 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


  The IPsec series of protocols makes use of various cryptographic
  algorithms in order to provide security services.  The Internet Key
  Exchange (IKE) protocol is used to negotiate the IPsec Security
  Association (IPsec SA) parameters, such as which algorithms should be
  used.  To ensure interoperability between different implementations,
  it is necessary to specify a set of algorithm implementation
  requirements and usage guidance to ensure that there is at least one
  algorithm that all implementations support.  This document updates
  RFC 7296 and obsoletes RFC 4307 in defining the current algorithm
  implementation requirements and usage guidance for IKEv2, and does
  minor cleaning up of the IKEv2 IANA registry.  This document does not
  update the algorithms used for packet encryption using IPsec
  Encapsulated Security Payload (ESP).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis/ballot/


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

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 type of this RFC is Proposed Standard. This is appropriated as the document updates RFC 7296 and obsoletes RFC 4307 which both are Standard Track. Also, this document defines the current algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance for IKEv2, and does minor cleaning up of the IKEv2 IANA registry.

The type is indicated in the header, along with the RFCs the document updates and obsoletes.

(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.

The IPsec series of protocols makes use of various cryptographic algorithms in order to provide security services.  The Internet Key Exchange (IKE) protocol is used to negotiate the IPsec Security
Association (IPsec SA) parameters, such as which algorithms should be used.  To ensure interoperability between different implementations, it is necessary to specify a set of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance to ensure that there is at least one algorithm that all implementations support.

 
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. The draft has been discussed frequently on the mailing list and a lot of comments have been provided on list by people other than the authors. In addition to mailing list discussions, the draft has been presented and discussed during IETF meetings: bikeshed in Yokohama (IETF95), presented at Buenos Aires (IETF96), and at Berlin (IETF96).
 
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?

The document is supported by vendors, and authors also represent a subset of vendors.
 
Personnel

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

  The Document Shepherd is David Waltermire. The responsible Area Director is Kathleen Moriarty.
 
(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 has completely reviewed this draft to include review of idnits, the references, and IANA considerations sections. No issues have been found. The document is ready for publication.
 
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document had a significant number of reviews/comments during the multiple iterations. The document Shepherd believes the document has been carefully reviewed.

(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.
 
(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.

  The document updates the cryptographic suites to be implemented by IKEv2 implementations. The document Shepherd has no issue with the document.

(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 authors confirm there is no IPR disclosure needed.

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

There is no related IPR disclosures for this document, or the prior document, RFC4307.

(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 document has been heavily discussed and reviewed by the WG, and has been presented during the IETF meetings. There has been a significant number of comments on the draft, which have been suffeciently addressed by the authors. The document represents the strong consensus of 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.

No error is raised.

The following waring was raised:

  == Missing Reference: 'RFCXXXX' is mentioned on line 679, but not
    defined
'27    ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_16  [RFC5529][RFCXXXX]  -...'

where RFCXXXX will be replaced by the assigned RFC number of the document.

 
(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.

No.


(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.

This document updates RFC 7296 and obsoletes RFC 4307 in defining the current algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance for IKEv2, and does minor cleaning up of the IKEv2 IANA registry. 

(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).

The IANA section asks to rename some cryptographic suite in order to maintain a more coherent designation for the cryptographic suite. As this names are changes by this document and these suites can be used in bot IKEv2 and ESP, the current document also needs to be reference. 

    +---------------------------------------+----------------------+
    | Old name                              | New name            |
    +---------------------------------------+----------------------+
    | AES-GCM with a 8 octet ICV            | ENCR_AES_GCM_8      |
    | AES-GCM with a 12 octet ICV          | ENCR_AES_GCM_12      |
    | AES-GCM with a 16 octet ICV          | ENCR_AES_GCM_16      |
    | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM with an 8-octet ICV | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_8  |
    | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM with a 12-octet ICV | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_12 |
    | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM with a 16-octet ICV | ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_16 |
    +---------------------------------------+----------------------+
     
 
(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/ikev2-parameters/ikev2-parameters.xhtml#ikev2-parameters-4
mentions Tero Kivinen as the 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.

There is no need to proceed to further checks.