Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)
draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-06

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis@ietf.org, David Waltermire <david.waltermire@nist.gov>, ekr@rtfm.com, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org, david.waltermire@nist.gov, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-06.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance
   for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header
   (AH)'
  (draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-06.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the IP Security Maintenance and Extensions
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Kathleen Moriarty and Eric Rescorla.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

This document is intended to obsolete the RFC7321 (Proposed Standard) and define a current mandatory to implement algorithms requirements and usage for IPsec traffic. There is another document draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis which does the same changes to the IKEv2, and both of the documents are mostly aligned to be same, except where there are different requirements for algorithms in IKEv2 vs ESP. It is requested that this draft and draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis be grouped for completing the publication process.

Working Group Summary

The draft had no controversy. The draft has been discussed frequently on the mailing list and a lot of comments have been provided on list by people other than the authors. In addition to mailing list discussions, the draft has been presented and discussed during IETF meetings at Berlin (IETF96) and briefly at Seoul (IETF97). Most of the decisions on the algorithm levels were done already when discussing the companion document rfc4307bis.

Document Quality

Yes, there are implementations and the document has has a fair amount of review.

Personnel

   David Waltermire is the draft shepherd and
   Eric Rescorla is the responsible AD.

RFC Editor Note