Re: [IPsec] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-ipsecme-esp-ah-reqts

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Wed, 26 February 2014 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.com>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F04A21A065A for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:22:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aXLrr7HcQh7n for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:22:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 119A11A01EF for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:22:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp89-089-218.bbn.com ([128.89.89.218]:53870) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1WIgJS-000M6N-Ol for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:22:22 -0500
Message-ID: <530E06AE.9040800@bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:22:22 -0500
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipsec@ietf.org
References: <530CE583.6030801@gmail.com> <C1A9B4B9-FABA-4EAB-B325-88DCB3F3D9CB@gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1402251615220.21879@bofh.nohats.ca>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1402251615220.21879@bofh.nohats.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/RlsNx5Jwdqxeq2Y1Y2dgqHR6nAw
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-ipsecme-esp-ah-reqts
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:22:27 -0000

Paul,

>> On Feb 25, 2014, at 8:48 PM, Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, this is to start a 2-week working group last call on the revised 
>> Algorithm Implementation Requirements
>> document, ending March 11. The draft is at: 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-esp-ah-reqts-01. We
>> should have last called the draft a while ago, and I apologize for 
>> the delay.
>
> Section 2.2:
>
> It lists NULL ESP as a MUST. Wasn't this a MUST a leftover from the old
> crypto export restrictions? While I think NULL ESP is a good debugging
> tool, and a good replacement for AH in general, I don't think this is
> really a MUST item (unless you would actually advise people to migrate
> from AH to ESP NULL, in which case I'll cheer on this MUST)
I think we do want folks to migrate from AH to ESP/NULL. That's why we
made support for AH a MAY a while ago.

Steve