[Ipsec] RE: draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-ah-algorithms-02.txt

Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> Thu, 30 December 2004 15:21 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20250 for <ipsec-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:21:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ck1yb-0001mW-B5; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:12:33 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ck1pL-0006uS-UZ for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:02:59 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18334 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:02:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from motgate7.mot.com ([129.188.136.7]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Ck20h-0002B6-Hf for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:14:43 -0500
Received: from az33exr02.mot.com (az33exr02.mot.com [10.64.251.232]) by motgate7.mot.com (Motorola/Motgate7) with ESMTP id iBUEs0ba025643 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 07:54:00 -0700 (MST)
Received: from ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com (ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com [10.14.33.5]) by az33exr02.mot.com (Motorola/az33exr02) with ESMTP id iBUExuXw018399 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:59:56 -0600
Received: by ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <ZH8SMSKG>; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:02:47 -0500
Message-ID: <62173B970AE0A044AED8723C3BCF238105CD4366@ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com>
From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>
To: 'Vishwas Manral' <Vishwas@sinett.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:02:39 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: [Ipsec] RE: draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-ah-algorithms-02.txt
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

See below at @@@

-----Original Message-----
From: Vishwas Manral [mailto:Vishwas@sinett.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 1:14 AM
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Cc: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Subject: draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-ah-algorithms-02.txt

Hi Donald,

I have some minor comments: -

1. For ESP we state that "MUST    NULL"(must support NULL authentication). However 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-v3-09.txt very clearly seems to state "However, this standard does not require ESP implementations to offer an encryption-only service."

We may want to change the MUST to SHOULD. Steve?

@@@ I think draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-v3-09 should be changed.

2. A more general comment, what about all the algorithm's that are specified by IETF but not in the document or a different key size, e.g. "SHOULD+    AES-CBC with 128-bit keys" what about other key sizes. I understand it is stated that: -
  "To ensure interoperability between disparate implementations it is necessary to
   specify a set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms to ensure at least one algorithm
   that all implementations will have available." however SHOULD's(I guess not mandatory) are specified.

@@@ I don't see why this document needs to list every algorithm/key-size mentioned in any other IETF document. If there is consensus for additional entries, I'd be happy to start a successor document. The document's MUSTs are the most important part and are a complete list of what the IETF process has yielded as the mandatory-to-implement algorithms. But I don't see what the problem is with the document containing SHOULDs or other levels of implementation advice and hints as to how that advice might change.

@@@ While the sentence you quote above is obviously true, that sentence does not deny that there are recommendations other than mandatory-to-implement in the document. Does every sentence in a document have to include every nuance from all of the rest of the material in a document?

Thanks,
Vishwas

@@@ Thanks,
@@@ Donald
 =========================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake III       Donald.Eastlake@Motorola.com
 Motorola Laboratories               1-508-786-7554 (work)
 111 Locke Drive                     1-508-634-2066 (home)
 Marlboro, MA 01752

_______________________________________________
Ipsec mailing list
Ipsec@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec