Re: [IPsec] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7634 (5441)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:06:30PM +0300, Yoav Nir wrote:
> This errata proposes to add the following sentence to section 4 of RFC 7634 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7634#section-4>:
> 
> As with other transforms that use a fixed-length key, the Key Length attribute MUST NOT be specified.
> 
> This sentence is correct. If this came up as a suggestion during WG processing or during LC, I think we would add it.
> 
> Looking back in RFC 7296, we have in section 3.3.5 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7296#section-3.3.5>:
> 
>    o  The Key Length attribute MUST NOT be used with transforms that use
>       a fixed-length key.  For example, this includes ENCR_DES,
>       ENCR_IDEA, and all the Type 2 (Pseudorandom Function) and Type 3
>       (Integrity Algorithm) transforms specified in this document.  It
>       is recommended that future Type 2 or 3 transforms do not use this
>       attribute.
> 
> And RFC 7634 says:
> 
>    o  The encryption key is 256 bits.
> 
> Given that, I don’t think there is any chance for a conscientious implementer to make the mistake of including the Key Length attribute.
> 
> I don’t believe adding clarifying text is a proper use of the errata system. At best it should be marked as editorial and held for document update, if not rejected outright.

I generally agree with this sentiment.  I would probably be willing to mark
as editorial/hold for document update in this case, though.  How would that
work for people?

-Ben