Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-15

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Wed, 18 January 2017 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <benl@google.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CAEA1295A3 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 04:42:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 lwDUHnFVun6B for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 04:42:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x233.google.com (mail-ua0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B88C312940C for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 04:42:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x233.google.com with SMTP id y9so8337038uae.2 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 04:42:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+VXIv+P7iDbZiniQ2dBNswcR8vVuWyn4rgvUXB90Eyg=; b=pgI0Ays0t3GaC96+xrTx0/HJ6yG3d2HiY49MDZayDVpdd3ECmJ2F/PWA3fhSAwrqkG OPTQCYIFUJK3Lpq9j0aqXfnsrJRt2nRLdhrADty4Xe0CJlAjoHgjsV9fNTq4bkkXI1ci 01xpHrq7RUoDxKVATcdw8IxXEbSoDs7DKKqU0lZC6HHAQhLETSv8wW5/l4seOIN+EBDe wB4E1t3w4IJ5zleikbtQDRaIBMMiUpYvK/i/bJR0KBwyvK4JPr1gsf6F7GDd9QJfrFHp MoH8k70d3eqw8WaaYsskqVrEMZng+IA+pGNBmacdg0rrpR+e/8jEXAbGEuTqXcGiLj0B Bepw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+VXIv+P7iDbZiniQ2dBNswcR8vVuWyn4rgvUXB90Eyg=; b=ElNpEl08907vIqyjZV3uYEB53nUfiRIFGnsFujyoj5n1a6kNKvoVxJ0HVmQTxUs71d JbRmCi2tEewaejHg1dnAzlCllBWtF/ZGfzOHtmVLE07Z0vwuvcL/BuqDcrKNperT0eHi PuF9f0N/kUAk7zbSicO0d9THH83pAHd3fqj2hjnq+Z5xdgHqe8P9D3oCoYkzjZvcY6vI DRaok1AWVJVVHU3cEUx3dqex/9tEYjEqbLscf38PB9CqN2tQs7nfyL2gNASBzCBXwMr0 HTEYFJ54lcbwNKJh4sFeOnb/rTEaeC8h3Hszc7PDMUO69sAS7sK54rMgCeX1PTY8myPW 6+yA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJKlahftC1g6XMnt4NBm3jx9inj/MKHm0xNnKfxOAgecZEB1+CjIjoxQ1+yKSF+JSkgjI1xDJXkCmRYoz21
X-Received: by 10.176.65.198 with SMTP id 64mr1676610uap.40.1484743347734; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 04:42:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.130.199 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 04:42:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwi7EnH0tMPS5+CX_-xZMKEr08vtN0207biWxMik4V-XZw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+Lwi7EnH0tMPS5+CX_-xZMKEr08vtN0207biWxMik4V-XZw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:42:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CABrd9SSCB6FszYp=PkGY6EnjYzjBKeEDbaqs4_Yb5R1eMmy6Sw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/EFLT4W3Hb9O06vSd4awkrrM0uR8>
Cc: draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis.all@ietf.org, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-15
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:42:30 -0000

Aren't we supposed to be deprecating 5114 primes?

On 18 January 2017 at 02:24, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
> IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
> security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
> these comments just like any other last call comments.
>
> STATUS: Ready with one minor typo.
>
>
> My personal taste would be to reduce the number of algorithms by half. But
> that is not practical given the history so this is the best we can do in the
> circumstances.
>
>
>
> Typos
>
>  Sec 3.4
>
>    Group 22, 23 and 24 are MODP Groups with Prime Order Subgroups thater
>    are not safe-primes.  The seeds for these groups have not been
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list
> secdir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview
>