Subject: [IPsec] New version of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-10.txt

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:16:17 +0300

I submitted new version of the rfc4307bis draft, which includes
following changes:

Changed ENCR_AES_CBC from MUST- to MUST. The WG meeting was in favor
of doing this change, and if you are against this change, say so
now...

Added the IANA considerations section to rename the AES-GCM with an/a
x octet ICV to ENCR_AES_GCM_x, and ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM with an/a x-octet
ICV with ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_x. This includes also renaming them in the
actual text (ENCR_AES_GCM_16) and adding piece to the abstract.

In the meeting there was brought up a point how do new implementors
know that ENCR_AES_GCM_x in the IANA registry maps to the name in the
RFC4106 when they do not match exactly. I talked to IANA about this
and gave few options:

1) Change reference to this document, and this document would then refer
   to the original.
2) Add both references to the references field, instead replacing the
   reference.
3) Adding new column saying formely known as
4) Adding footnotes saying this was renamed in RFCxxxx
etc...

In the end I think the best option would be to just include both RFCs
in the references column, i.e. make the final table to be something
like this:

   Number Name                  ESP Reference       IKEv2 Reference
   ...
   18     ENCR_AES_GCM_8        [RFC4106][RFCXXXX]  [RFC5282][RFCXXXX]
   19     ENCR_AES_GCM_12       [RFC4106][RFCXXXX]  [RFC5282][RFCXXXX]
   20     ENCR_AES_GCM_16       [RFC4106][RFCXXXX]  [RFC5282][RFCXXXX]
   ...
   25     ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_8   [RFC5529][RFCXXXX]  -
   26     ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_12  [RFC5529][RFCXXXX]  -
   27     ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_16  [RFC5529][RFCXXXX]  -

where the RFCXXX would be this RFC.

Check out the IANA considerations section and comment if there is
something you are not happy about.

I will myself talk to the IANA about this, and verify that we included
everything they want us to include... Luckily the IANA expert for the
registry most likely will not object :-)
-- 
[email-masked]

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 07:40:38 -0400 (EDT)

> where the RFCXXX would be this RFC.

Works for me.

> something you are not happy about.

Looks good. (the word "does" is a little weird but the RFC Editor can
reword it)

I believe this document is ready for WGLC,

Paul

---

From: Tommy Pauly <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:29:08 +0200

Yes, this looks good! I think both RFCs in the columns makes sense. I agree that this looks ready for WGLC.

Tommy

> On Jul 20, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Paul Wouters <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec