[TLS] PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-tls-des-idea-02
"Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com> Thu, 16 October 2008 00:48 UTC
Return-Path: <tls-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tls-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tls-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594A13A6A15; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 967913A6A15 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eJdKFQ4uFkII for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F28423A69EC for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,419,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="176083291"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Oct 2008 00:49:15 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m9G0nFNu015560 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:49:15 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9G0nFc1010524 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:49:15 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.38]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:49:14 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:48:14 -0700
Message-ID: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE506B7914C@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-tls-des-idea-02
Thread-Index: AckvKN9eaOSHYnScScOTk6l+1JHkJw==
From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
To: tls@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2008 00:49:14.0969 (UTC) FILETIME=[0324FC90:01C92F29]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=6731; t=1224118155; x=1224982155; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Joseph=20Salowey=20(jsalowey)=22=20<jsalowey@ci sco.com> |Subject:=20PROTO=20write-up=20for=20=20draft-ietf-tls-des- idea-02 |Sender:=20; bh=DyufA1RBKFKI/gktgBL8v0yib+ABcExQ/kUZBGlaenM=; b=DwRUaS2BQXugHPxLngoJuxsCeZQwZiE+lP38WIbUQZLVeN2AXu8V2JFUA2 IQvTMMo+ZI6L0F00bDUnYcenTK7r+6XwIg/e8d6mzuTIaHWFQjuFHBuWsnkK 0UW03F8TT0IUly7Cjd5W9D49itLeETqrSi7U2J2kA+6UxYLO9VkGk=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=jsalowey@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
Subject: [TLS] PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-tls-des-idea-02
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tls-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tls-bounces@ietf.org
Here is the PROTO write-up I will send for draft-ietf-tls-des-idea-02 (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? I am the Document Shepard for this document. I have personally reviewed this version of the document and I believe it is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has had adequate review from working group and non-working group members. I do not have concerns about the depth or breadth of review. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. An IPR disclosure related to this document has been filed as #975. It can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id_docum ent_tag=16947. This document is an informational draft that deprecates the use of IDEA which is the subject of this IPR disclosure. There were no objections to this in the working group. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is solid WG consensus behind the document. The WG as a whole understands the document. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document has split references. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? This document does not create a new registry, it modifies entries in an existing one. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Not Applicable. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary TLS specification versions 1.0 (RFC 2246) and 1.1 (RFC 4346) included cipher suites based on DES (Data Encryption Standard) and IDEA (International Data Encryption Algorithm) algorithms. DES (when used in single-DES mode) and IDEA are no longer recommended for general use in TLS, and have been removed from TLS 1.2 main specification (RFC 5246). This document specifies these cipher suites for completeness, and discusses reasons why their use is no longer recommended. Working Group Summary This document review was non-controversial. The longest discussion was on the use of SHOULD and MUST in an informational document. Document Quality This document deprecates ciphers, removed from TLS 1.2, that are no longer considered appropriate for general use. There is general agreement in the security community that this is the right thing to do. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
- [TLS] PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-tls-des-idea-… Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)