Skip to main content

Deprecating RC4 in Secure Shell (SSH)
RFC 8758

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-04-28
18 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8758, changed abstract to 'This document deprecates RC4 in Secure Shell (SSH).  Therefore, this document …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8758, changed abstract to 'This document deprecates RC4 in Secure Shell (SSH).  Therefore, this document formally moves RFC 4345 to Historic status.', changed pages to 5, changed standardization level to Best Current Practice, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2020-04-28, changed IESG state to RFC Published, created updates relation between draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die and RFC 4253, created alias BCP 227)
2020-04-28
18 (System) RFC published
2020-04-24
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2020-03-04
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2020-03-03
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2020-02-25
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from IESG
2019-11-25
18 Loganaden Velvindron New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-18.txt
2019-11-25
18 (System) New version approved
2019-11-25
18 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Loganaden Velvindron , curdle-chairs@ietf.org, Luis Camara
2019-11-25
18 Loganaden Velvindron Uploaded new revision
2019-11-19
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to IESG from EDIT
2019-10-23
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2019-10-22
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2019-10-22
17 Loganaden Velvindron New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-17.txt
2019-10-22
17 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Loganaden Velvindron)
2019-10-22
17 Loganaden Velvindron Uploaded new revision
2019-09-30
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2019-09-24
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2019-09-24
16 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2019-09-24
16 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2019-09-23
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2019-09-23
16 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2019-09-23
16 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2019-09-23
16 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2019-09-23
16 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2019-09-23
16 Benjamin Kaduk Approval announcement to be sent in tandem with status-change-ssh-arcfour-to-historic.
2019-09-23
16 Benjamin Kaduk IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2019-09-23
16 Benjamin Kaduk RFC Editor Note was changed
2019-09-23
16 Benjamin Kaduk RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated
2019-09-23
16 Benjamin Kaduk RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated
2019-09-19
16 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2019-09-19
16 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] Position for Warren Kumari has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2019-09-19
16 Ignas Bagdonas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas
2019-09-18
16 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2019-09-18
16 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2019-09-18
16 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2019-09-18
16 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund
2019-09-16
16 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2019-09-16
16 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2019-09-15
16 Warren Kumari
[Ballot discuss]
Be ye not alarmed -- this should be super-trivial to address, either by telling my why I'm wrong, or fixing it -- in …
[Ballot discuss]
Be ye not alarmed -- this should be super-trivial to address, either by telling my why I'm wrong, or fixing it -- in either case, I'll change to a YES.
I'm also fine with this being addressed in AUTH48, etc (if I'm not on the telechat, no need to for Revised ID Needed on my behalf)

The IANA considerations section says:
-----
  The IANA is requested to update the Encryption Algorithm Name
  Registry of the Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Parameters [IANA].  The
  Registration procedure is IETF Review which is achieved by this
  document.  The registry should be updated as follows:
          +------------------------------+------------+------+
          | Encryption  Algorithm  Name  | Reference  | Note |
          +------------------------------+------------+------+
| arcfour
| arcfour128
| arcfour256
+------------------------------+------------+------+
  Where TBD is the RFC number assigned to the document.

---

I think it would be vastly preferable to include a Note saying something along the lines of: "DEPRECATED" (or "HISTORIC" like for des-cbc). Someone implementing SSH / updating their implementation may look at the IANA page and not read all of the links.
2019-09-15
16 Warren Kumari Ballot discuss text updated for Warren Kumari
2019-09-15
16 Warren Kumari
[Ballot discuss]
This should be trivial to address, either by telling my why I'm wrong, or fixing it -- in either case, I'll change to …
[Ballot discuss]
This should be trivial to address, either by telling my why I'm wrong, or fixing it -- in either case, I'll change to a YES.

The IANA considerations section says:
-----
  The IANA is requested to update the Encryption Algorithm Name
  Registry of the Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Parameters [IANA].  The
  Registration procedure is IETF Review which is achieved by this
  document.  The registry should be updated as follows:
          +------------------------------+------------+------+
          | Encryption  Algorithm  Name  | Reference  | Note |
          +------------------------------+------------+------+
| arcfour
| arcfour128
| arcfour256
+------------------------------+------------+------+
  Where TBD is the RFC number assigned to the document.

---

I think it would be vastly preferable to include a Note saying something along the lines of: "DEPRECATED" (or "HISTORIC" like for des-cbc). Someone implementing SSH / updating their implementation may look at the IANA page and not read all of the links.
2019-09-15
16 Warren Kumari [Ballot comment]
Thank you very much for writing this -- it's important, well written, etc.
Also thanks to Fred for the OpsDir review.
2019-09-15
16 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2019-09-12
16 Benjamin Kaduk IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2019-09-12
16 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
(1) Section 1.  Per '[RFC4345] specifies and allocates the "arcfour-128" and "arcfour-256" ciphers for SSH', RFC4345 seems to call these allocations …
[Ballot comment]
(1) Section 1.  Per '[RFC4345] specifies and allocates the "arcfour-128" and "arcfour-256" ciphers for SSH', RFC4345 seems to call these allocations “arcfour128” and “arcfour256” (no hyphen).

(2) Editorial
-- Abstract.  Editorial.  s/Therefore, this document formally moves to Historic RFC4345/Therefore, this document formally moves to  RFC4345 to Historic status/

-- Section 1. s/Historic/Historic status/

-- Section 2. s/The current document updates the status/This document updates the status/

-- Section 2.  s/The current document updates [RFC4253] Section 6.3/This document updates [RFC4254 Section 6.3/

-- Section 2.  Typo.  s/weakenesses/weaknesses/
2019-09-12
16 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2019-09-12
16 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] Position for Éric Vyncke has been changed to Yes from No Objection
2019-09-12
16 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2019-09-05
16 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2019-09-04
16 Barry Leiba [Ballot comment]
Don’t forget to schedule a management item on the telechat for moving 4345 to Historic.  (Never mind... I see the status-change doc now.)
2019-09-04
16 Barry Leiba Ballot comment text updated for Barry Leiba
2019-09-04
16 Barry Leiba [Ballot comment]
Don’t forget to schedule a management item on the telechat for moving 4345 to Historic.
2019-09-04
16 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2019-09-04
16 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2019-09-03
16 Amy Vezza Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-09-19
2019-08-02
16 Cindy Morgan Removed from agenda for telechat
2019-08-01
16 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2019-07-31
16 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-08-08
2019-07-31
16 Benjamin Kaduk Ballot has been issued
2019-07-31
16 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2019-07-31
16 Benjamin Kaduk Created "Approve" ballot
2019-07-31
16 Benjamin Kaduk Ballot writeup was changed
2019-07-31
16 Loganaden Velvindron New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-16.txt
2019-07-31
16 (System) New version approved
2019-07-31
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , Loganaden Velvindron , curdle-chairs@ietf.org
2019-07-31
16 Loganaden Velvindron Uploaded new revision
2019-07-30
15 Benjamin Kaduk
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 status is BCP. The status can be discussed but this is
the status that reached consensus for "Deprecate 3DES and RC4 in
Kerberos" draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05.

This draft achieves similar goals and as such the status is appropriated.

(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 deprecates RC4 in Secure Shell (SSH).  Therefore, this
document updates [RFC4253], and formally obsoletes and moves to
Historic [RFC4345].

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?

None opposed.

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 draft mostly recommend removing some codes.

Personnel

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

Daniel Migault is the shepherd of the draft. Benjamin Kaduk is the responsible area director.

(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 is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No, the draft is pretty straight forward and had significant reviews. It also
has an existing implementation.

(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.

I have no issues regarding the draft.

(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 draft has two co-authors:
* Loganaden Velvindron confirm he is not aware of any IPR and was the most active author.
* Luis Camara has not confirmed yet he is not aware of any IPR. However, Luis has not been
responsive for some time, as such I am not expecting responses from him. 

While we may miss one IPR statement from one co-author. I hardly see how IPR could be
related to this draft.

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

See above

(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? 

There were no controversy.

(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 nits were found.

dnits 2.16.0

/tmp/draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-12.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC4345, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC4345
    though, so this could be OK.


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC-TBD' is mentioned on line 130, but not defined


    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.


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

This is not in scope of the document.

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

All references are either informative or normative.

(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?

The document references "Deprecate 3DES and RC4 in Kerberos" 
draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05 as an informative reference.
It would be preferred the latest reference become an RFC before the publication
of the draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die. This is likely to be achieved as 
draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05 is pretty much advanced and is in AUTH48 state. 


(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.

The current document updates 4253 and obsoletes 4345. This is mentioned in the header, abstract and introduction.


(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 is appropriately filled. We chose to place the current
draft as the reference for the registry code point.

(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.

The IANA registry requires IETF review which is achieved with this draft.

(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.

no specific check is required by the document.
2019-03-27
15 Cindy Morgan Shepherding AD changed to Benjamin Kaduk
2019-03-07
15 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response'
2019-01-16
15 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2019-01-16
15 Loganaden Velvindron New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-15.txt
2019-01-16
15 (System) New version approved
2019-01-16
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , Loganaden Velvindron
2019-01-16
15 Loganaden Velvindron Uploaded new revision
2019-01-09
14 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2019-01-08
14 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2019-01-08
14 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the Encryption Algorithm Names registry on the Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Parameters registry page located at:

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

three, existing registrations are to have their references changed.

arcfour is to be changed from RFC4253 to [ RFC-to-be ]
arcfour128 is to be changed from RFC4345 to [ RFC-to-be ]
arcfour256 is to be changed from RFC4345 to [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Functions 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist
2019-01-04
14 Aanchal Malhotra Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Aanchal Malhotra. Sent review to list.
2019-01-03
14 Fred Baker Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Fred Baker. Sent review to list.
2019-01-03
14 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker
2019-01-03
14 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker
2018-12-27
14 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Fernando Gont
2018-12-27
14 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Fernando Gont
2018-12-27
14 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Aanchal Malhotra
2018-12-27
14 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Aanchal Malhotra
2018-12-26
14 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2018-12-26
14 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-01-09):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ekr@rtfm.com, Daniel Migault , curdle-chairs@ietf.org, curdle@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-01-09):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ekr@rtfm.com, Daniel Migault , curdle-chairs@ietf.org, curdle@ietf.org, daniel.migault@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Deprecating RC4 in Secure Shell (SSH)) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the CURves, Deprecating and a Little
more Encryption WG (curdle) to consider the following document: -
'Deprecating RC4 in Secure Shell (SSH)'
  as Best Current Practice

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 2019-01-09. 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 deprecates RC4 in Secure Shell (SSH).  Therefore, this
  document formally obsoletes and moves to Historic RFC4345.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die/ballot/


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




2018-12-26
14 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2018-12-26
14 Eric Rescorla Last call was requested
2018-12-26
14 Eric Rescorla Last call announcement was generated
2018-12-26
14 Eric Rescorla Ballot approval text was generated
2018-12-26
14 Eric Rescorla Ballot writeup was generated
2018-12-26
14 Eric Rescorla IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2018-12-25
14 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2018-12-25
14 Loganaden Velvindron New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-14.txt
2018-12-25
14 (System) New version approved
2018-12-25
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , Loganaden Velvindron
2018-12-25
14 Loganaden Velvindron Uploaded new revision
2018-12-25
14 Loganaden Velvindron Uploaded new revision
2018-12-21
13 Eric Rescorla IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2018-12-21
13 Eric Rescorla Waiting on one more change.
2018-11-20
13 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2018-11-20
13 Loganaden Velvindron New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-13.txt
2018-11-20
13 (System) New version approved
2018-11-20
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , Loganaden Velvindron
2018-11-20
13 Loganaden Velvindron Uploaded new revision
2018-11-04
12 Eric Rescorla
Rich version of this review at:
https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3874


I have some minor comments here.
COMMENTS
S 1.

>      The usage of RC4 suites …
Rich version of this review at:
https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3874


I have some minor comments here.
COMMENTS
S 1.

>      The usage of RC4 suites ( also designated as arcfour ) for SSH are
>      specified in [RFC4253] and [RFC4345].  [RFC4253] specifies the
>      allocation of the "arcfour" cipher for SSH.  [RFC4345] specifies and
>      allocates the the "arcfour-128" and "arcfour-256" ciphers for SSH.
>      RC4 encryption is steadily weakening in cryptographic strength

Nit: I'm not sure it's steadily weakening. Are we really learning more
about the weaknesses in the cipher or just getting better at
exploiting them?


S 2.
>      [RFC4253] defines the "arcfour" ciphers with the text mentioned
>      below:

>      The "arcfour" cipher is the Arcfour stream cipher with 128-bit keys.
>      The Arcfour cipher is believed to be compatible with the RC4 cipher
>      [SCHNEIER].  Arcfour (and RC4) has problems with weak keys, and

I feel like at this point we can say it's more than believed.
2018-11-04
12 Eric Rescorla IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested
2018-10-15
12 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 status is BCP. The status can be discussed but this is
the status that reached consensus for "Deprecate 3DES and RC4 in
Kerberos" draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05.

This draft achieves similar goals and as such the status is appropriated.

(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 deprecates RC4 in Secure Shell (SSH).  Therefore, this
document updates [RFC4253], and formally obsoletes and moves to
Historic [RFC4345].

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?

None opposed.

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 draft mostly recommend removing some codes.

Personnel

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

Daniel Migault is the shepherd of the draft. Eric Rescorla is the responsible area director.

(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 is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No, the draft is pretty straight forward and had significant reviews. It also
has an existing implementation.

(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.

I have no issues regarding the draft.

(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 draft has two co-authors:
* Loganaden Velvindron confirm he is not aware of any IPR and was the most active author.
* Luis Camara has not confirmed yet he is not aware of any IPR. However, Luis has not been
responsive for some time, as such I am not expecting responses from him. 

While we may miss one IPR statement from one co-author. I hardly see how IPR could be
related to this draft.

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

See above

(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? 

There were no controversy.

(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 nits were found.

dnits 2.16.0

/tmp/draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-12.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC4345, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC4345
    though, so this could be OK.


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC-TBD' is mentioned on line 130, but not defined


    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.


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

This is not in scope of the document.

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

All references are either informative or normative.

(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?

The document references "Deprecate 3DES and RC4 in Kerberos" 
draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05 as an informative reference.
It would be preferred the latest reference become an RFC before the publication
of the draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die. This is likely to be achieved as 
draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05 is pretty much advanced and is in AUTH48 state. 


(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.

The current document updates 4253 and obsoletes 4325. This is mentioned in the header, abstract and introduction.


(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 is appropriately filled. We chose to place the current
draft as the reference for the registry code point.

(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.

The IANA registry requires IETF review which is achieved with this draft.

(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.

no specific check is required by the document.
2018-10-15
12 Daniel Migault Responsible AD changed to Eric Rescorla
2018-10-15
12 Daniel Migault IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call
2018-10-15
12 Daniel Migault IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2018-10-15
12 Daniel Migault IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2018-10-15
12 Daniel Migault Changed document writeup
2018-10-15
12 Loganaden Velvindron New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-12.txt
2018-10-15
12 (System) New version approved
2018-10-15
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , Loganaden Velvindron
2018-10-15
12 Loganaden Velvindron Uploaded new revision
2018-10-12
11 Loganaden Velvindron New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-11.txt
2018-10-12
11 (System) New version approved
2018-10-12
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , Loganaden Velvindron
2018-10-12
11 Loganaden Velvindron Uploaded new revision
2018-10-05
10 Daniel Migault Changed document writeup
2018-10-05
10 Daniel Migault Changed document writeup
2018-10-05
10 Daniel Migault Notification list changed to Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>
2018-10-05
10 Daniel Migault Document shepherd changed to Daniel Migault
2018-09-24
10 Loganaden Velvindron New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-10.txt
2018-09-24
10 (System) New version approved
2018-09-24
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , Loganaden Velvindron
2018-09-24
10 Loganaden Velvindron Uploaded new revision
2018-09-04
09 Loganaden Velvindron New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-09.txt
2018-09-04
09 (System) New version approved
2018-09-03
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , curdle-chairs@ietf.org, Loganaden Velvindron
2018-09-03
09 Loganaden Velvindron Uploaded new revision
2018-08-09
08 Loganaden Velvindron New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-08.txt
2018-08-09
08 (System) New version approved
2018-08-09
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , Loganaden Velvindron , curdle-chairs@ietf.org
2018-08-09
08 Loganaden Velvindron Uploaded new revision
2018-08-09
07 Loganaden Velvindron New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-07.txt
2018-08-09
07 (System) New version approved
2018-08-09
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , curdle-chairs@ietf.org
2018-08-09
07 Loganaden Velvindron Uploaded new revision
2018-07-30
06 (System) Document has expired
2018-01-29
06 Rich Salz There was been some mailing list feedback, but now we enter formal WG last call.  Please post comments within a week.
2018-01-29
06 Rich Salz IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from Adopted by a WG
2018-01-29
06 Rich Salz Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2018-01-29
06 Rich Salz Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice from None
2018-01-26
06 Luís Câmara New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-06.txt
2018-01-26
06 (System) New version approved
2018-01-26
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara
2018-01-26
06 Luís Câmara Uploaded new revision
2018-01-10
05 Luís Câmara New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-05.txt
2018-01-10
05 (System) New version approved
2018-01-10
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara
2018-01-10
05 Luís Câmara Uploaded new revision
2017-12-12
04 Luís Câmara New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-04.txt
2017-12-12
04 (System) New version approved
2017-12-12
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara
2017-12-12
04 Luís Câmara Uploaded new revision
2017-12-09
03 Luís Câmara New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-03.txt
2017-12-09
03 (System) New version approved
2017-12-09
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara
2017-12-09
03 Luís Câmara Uploaded new revision
2017-08-16
02 Rich Salz IETF WG state changed to Adopted by a WG from Call For Adoption By WG Issued
2017-08-08
02 Luís Câmara New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-02.txt
2017-08-08
02 (System) New version approved
2017-08-08
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara
2017-08-08
02 Luís Câmara Uploaded new revision
2017-08-07
01 Rich Salz Erroneously accepted by co-chair without formal adoption.
2017-08-07
01 Rich Salz IETF WG state changed to Call For Adoption By WG Issued from WG Document
2017-08-01
01 Luís Câmara New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-01.txt
2017-08-01
01 (System) New version approved
2017-08-01
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara
2017-08-01
01 Luís Câmara Uploaded new revision
2017-07-03
00 Rich Salz This document now replaces draft-luis140219-curdle-rc4-die-die-die instead of None
2017-07-03
00 Luís Câmara New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-00.txt
2017-07-03
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2017-07-03
00 Luís Câmara Set submitter to "Luís Câmara ", replaces to draft-luis140219-curdle-rc4-die-die-die and sent approval email to group chairs: curdle-chairs@ietf.org
2017-07-03
00 Luís Câmara Uploaded new revision