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

Hi

I think this document is ready. 

A quick glance at the tables in section two lead me to ask some questions:
Why is DES singled out, while things like HMAC-MD5 are not discouraged?
Why is there no algorithm diversity?
Why is HMAC-SHA-256 not there?

However, reading section 4 answered all of those questions, so I think it’s clear. The only nit I can find is that “+” means “in the future this will be more encouraged”, and “-“ means “in the future this will be less encouraged, except for “SHOULD NOT+”. It might be more consistent if that was called “SHOULD NOT-“. But that is nit-picking, as the text does explain what that means. 

Yoav

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.
> 
> The changes from the existing requirements are listed in Sec. 2.5 of the draft, but most of this (rather short) document is new and describes the rationale for the choice of algorithms and requirement levels.
> 
> Please read this draft and send any comments to the WG mailing list, even if the comments are "I see no problems". Comments such as "I do not understand this part" or "this part could be explained better in this way" are particularly useful at this point.
> 
> Thanks,
>    Yaron
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec