FW: [Ipsec] Discrepency RFC4301 and RFC4305
"Vishwas Manral" <Vishwas@sinett.com> Tue, 10 January 2006 02:57 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ew9hQ-0003Xp-CE; Mon, 09 Jan 2006 21:57:28 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ew9hN-0003Xh-Ay for ipv6@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jan 2006 21:57:26 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA25090 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:56:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 63-197-255-154.ded.pacbell.net ([63.197.255.154] helo=sinett.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ew9nz-0000Xw-GY for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:04:16 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:57:05 -0800
Message-ID: <BB6D74C75CC76A419B6D6FA7C38317B2C3A5F4@sinett-sbs.SiNett.LAN>
Thread-Topic: [Ipsec] Discrepency RFC4301 and RFC4305
Thread-Index: AcYVNUfFI1kYkBDGTPOpsMK1/Gq8GgAW9NEg
From: Vishwas Manral <Vishwas@sinett.com>
To: john.loughney@nokia.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 1ed37b243475b9c4ffb6a3f90050819d
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: FW: [Ipsec] Discrepency RFC4301 and RFC4305
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1546701573=="
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Hi John, I am attaching a new thread regarding the NULL auth algorithm on the IPsec mailing list. This should probably clarify what I had said in the thread "draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-11.txt". Thanks, Vishwas ________________________________ From: Stephen Kent [mailto:kent@bbn.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 9:16 PM To: Vishwas Manral Cc: IPsec; russ housley Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Discrepency RFC4301 and RFC4305 At 8:04 PM -0800 1/8/06, Vishwas Manral wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C614D1.CA0C5D20" Hi, I had brought out the issue more then a year back that: RFC4301 states - confidentiality-only (MAY be supported) - integrity only (MUST be supported) - confidentiality and integrity (MUST be supported) However RFC4305 states that NULL authentication support is a MUST. I had brought out the issue with the draft which became RFC4305. Stephen Kent had supported the change and stated "since we changed the requirements for encryption-only support in this round of document revisions, I think a SHOULD here is correct." http://130.230.52.14/list-archive/ipsec/msg05576.html <http://130.230.52.14/list-archive/ipsec/msg05576.html> however Donald Eastlake had stated @@@ I think draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-v3-09 should be changed. http://130.230.52.14/list-archive/ipsec/msg05578.html <http://130.230.52.14/list-archive/ipsec/msg05578.html> The issue never got resolved and we now have this discrepancy in the RFC's. Should I send an errata for RFC4305 regarding the same? Thanks, Vishwas Whoops. Sorry that this one fell through the cracks in the intervening year after you noted the discrepancy. I still think a SHOULD is appropriate for ESP, given the changes in the architecture document. Since this is a significant change (from a MUST to a SHOULD), it cannot be an errata, as Paul noted. I'll ask Russ how he would like to handle this. Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- FW: [Ipsec] Discrepency RFC4301 and RFC4305 Vishwas Manral