Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-cbc-03.txt

[Rodney Thayer <[e-mail]>]

I'll check again myself, but where do you think it violates the roadmap?

Presumably proper etiquette is to switch this conversation to the IPSec mailing list.

At 07:11 PM 9/9/98 +0000, you wrote:
>I was horrified to see this posting today, and this message is a formal
>protest against this document being advanced:
>
>> From: [e-mail]
>> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 10:46:03 -0400
>>
>> --NextPart
>>
>> Note: This revision reflects comments received during the last call period.
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the IP Security Protocol Working Group of the IETF.
>>
>> 	Title		: The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher Algorithms
>> 	Author(s)	: R. Pereira, R. Adams
>> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-cbc-03.txt
>> 	Pages		: 13
>> 	Date		: 08-Sep-98
>> 	
>>    This document describes how to use CBC-mode cipher algorithms with
>>    the IPSec ESP (Encapsulating Security Payload) Protocol.  It not
>>    only clearly states how to use certain cipher algorithms, but also
>>    how to use all CBC-mode cipher algorithms.
>>
>Gentlefolk, it cannot "reflect comments", as this document has not been
>through any "last call".  Even the WG chose not to advance it during the
>internal last call.  It was deliberately _omitted_ from the IESG IPSec
>last call.
>
>If it _had_ been included, then formal appeals processes would have
>prevented publication of any and all documents that reference it, for a
>_VERY_ long time!
>
>(1) If there is a need for a "normative" CBC mode description, this is
>    already available as draft-simpson-cbc-01.txt, which has long been
>    awaiting publication as Informational (no last call is needed).
>
>(2) Including multiple ciphers in the document makes it difficult or
>    impossible to advance.  We have often had this problem with "kitchen
>    sink" options documents in other WGs.
>
>(3) Several of the ciphers are proprietary, and are not likely to be
>    universally implemented, again making it impossible to advance.
>
>(4) The document does not meet the WG doc-roadmap requirements, which
>    have been through last call.
>
>(5) Some of the ciphers are "standardized" for 40 bits.  The formal
>    position of the IETF, after considerable debate, and acclaimation at
>    an open IESG plenary, has been that this is unacceptable!
>
>(6) This document is derivative from my own text without sufficient
>    attribution.  Figures and quotations are plagiarized, from
>    draft-simpson-cbc-01.txt and draft-simpson-des3v2-03.txt (or earlier
>    versions thereof).
>
>[e-mail]
>    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
>