IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-02 for IETF 82 in Taipei ?

"t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> Tue, 08 November 2011 11:56 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D717821F8B29 for <ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 03:56:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.503, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xBqko1K7eXI8 for <ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 03:56:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netbsd.org (ns.NetBSD.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:7::53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5ABD21F8B06 for <secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 03:56:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 605) id 98E2414A46B; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:55:56 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A91814A46A for <ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:55:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at NetBSD.org
Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.NetBSD.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with ESMTP id vjSWSBi7R6ZZ for <ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:55:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2beaomr09.btconnect.com [213.123.26.187]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE8B014A442 for <ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:55:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from host86-177-208-97.range86-177.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([86.177.208.97]) by c2beaomr09.btconnect.com with SMTP id FBU19211; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:55:42 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <01f601cc9e04$36a45960$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: "denis bider (Bitvise)" <ietf-ssh2@denisbider.com>, "Mark D. Baushke" <mdb@juniper.net>
Cc: ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org
References: <92480.1320706955@eng-mail01.juniper.net> <03EA6F2494C84B9FAC9B6EFD122B63C1@element> <1484.1320727419@eng-mail01.juniper.net>
Subject: Re: draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-02 for IETF 82 in Taipei ?
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:50:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.4EB918BE.004D, actions=tag
X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.11.8.110015:17:7.586, ip=86.177.208.97, rules=__HAS_MSGID, __OUTLOOK_MSGID_1, __SANE_MSGID, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, CT_TP_8859_1, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_2000_2999, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr09.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.4EB918C1.0128, ss=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org
List-Id: ietf-ssh.NetBSD.org
Precedence: list

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark D. Baushke" <mdb@juniper.net>
To: "denis bider (Bitvise)" <ietf-ssh2@denisbider.com>
Cc: <ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 5:43 AM

> Hi Denis,

> My understanding is that it is possible to do this all via e-mail rather
> than f2f at the IETF 82 meeting...
>
> Reading http://www.ietf.org/tao.html ...
>
> seems to indicate that petitioning the Security Area Advisory Group
> (SAAG) could be asked to look at the ietf-ssh mail archives and bring it
> up for consideration/arguments on the IETF 82 agenda.
>
> I think you need to re-issue your draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-02 draft
> as draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-03 to have one which is not expired
> send a notcie to both ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org and saag@ietf.org with a
> subject like:
>
>   draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-03 submission for Draft Standard

Errr ... no more:-(

RFC6410 abolished Draft Standard, we now have Proposed Standard and Internet
Standard.

You still need the active support of an AD to push things through (not that
RFC6410 mentions that;-).

Tom Petch

>
> A cover email letter pointing at multiple interoperable implementations
> means that folks get to argue about the names or the spec a bit, but I
> think it is ready to go as-is...
>
> -- Mark
>
>  ------- original message -------
> From: "denis bider \(Bitvise\)" <ietf-ssh2@denisbider.com>
> To: <ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org>, "Mark D. Baushke" <mdb@juniper.net>
> Subject: Re: draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-02 for IETF 82 in Taipei ?
> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 21:59:04 -0600
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197
> X-SBScore: 0 (Spam Threshold: 20) (Block Threshold: 5)
>
> Thank you for bringing this up.
>
> It would be nice if someone did pick it up, to make it final.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark D. Baushke" <mdb@juniper.net>
> To: <ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 17:02
> Subject: draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-02 for IETF 82 in Taipei ?
>
> Is anyone going to present the draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-02 (-03?)
> to the IETF 82 in Taipei Taiwa Nov 13-18 as a standards or informational
> track RFC?
>
> Given multiple implementations (e.g., OpenSSH 5.9, TTSH 2.58,
> WinSSHD) supporting SSH2 MAC algorithms: hmac-sha2-256,
> hmac-sha2-256-96, hmac-sha2-512, hmac-sha2-512-96 exist, it would seem
> at least an informational RFC is desirable.
>
> -- Mark

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email