Deprecating RC4 in Secure Shell (SSH)
draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-18
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-04-24
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2020-03-04
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2020-03-03
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2020-02-25
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from IESG |
2019-11-25
|
18 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-18.txt |
2019-11-25
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-11-25
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Loganaden Velvindron , curdle-chairs@ietf.org, Luis Camara |
2019-11-25
|
18 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2019-11-19
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to IESG from EDIT |
2019-10-23
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2019-10-22
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2019-10-22
|
17 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-17.txt |
2019-10-22
|
17 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Loganaden Velvindron) |
2019-10-22
|
17 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2019-09-30
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2019-09-24
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2019-09-24
|
16 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2019-09-24
|
16 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2019-09-23
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2019-09-23
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2019-09-23
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2019-09-23
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2019-09-23
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-09-23
|
16 | Benjamin Kaduk | Approval announcement to be sent in tandem with status-change-ssh-arcfour-to-historic. |
2019-09-23
|
16 | Benjamin Kaduk | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2019-09-23
|
16 | Benjamin Kaduk | RFC Editor Note was changed |
2019-09-23
|
16 | Benjamin Kaduk | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2019-09-23
|
16 | Benjamin Kaduk | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2019-09-19
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2019-09-19
|
16 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Warren Kumari has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2019-09-19
|
16 | Ignas Bagdonas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas |
2019-09-18
|
16 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2019-09-18
|
16 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2019-09-18
|
16 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2019-09-18
|
16 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2019-09-16
|
16 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2019-09-16
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2019-09-15
|
16 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot discuss] Be ye not alarmed -- this should be super-trivial to address, either by telling my why I'm wrong, or fixing it -- in … [Ballot discuss] Be ye not alarmed -- this should be super-trivial to address, either by telling my why I'm wrong, or fixing it -- in either case, I'll change to a YES. I'm also fine with this being addressed in AUTH48, etc (if I'm not on the telechat, no need to for Revised ID Needed on my behalf) The IANA considerations section says: ----- The IANA is requested to update the Encryption Algorithm Name Registry of the Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Parameters [IANA]. The Registration procedure is IETF Review which is achieved by this document. The registry should be updated as follows: +------------------------------+------------+------+ | Encryption Algorithm Name | Reference | Note | +------------------------------+------------+------+ | arcfour | arcfour128 | arcfour256 +------------------------------+------------+------+ Where TBD is the RFC number assigned to the document. --- I think it would be vastly preferable to include a Note saying something along the lines of: "DEPRECATED" (or "HISTORIC" like for des-cbc). Someone implementing SSH / updating their implementation may look at the IANA page and not read all of the links. |
2019-09-15
|
16 | Warren Kumari | Ballot discuss text updated for Warren Kumari |
2019-09-15
|
16 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot discuss] This should be trivial to address, either by telling my why I'm wrong, or fixing it -- in either case, I'll change to … [Ballot discuss] This should be trivial to address, either by telling my why I'm wrong, or fixing it -- in either case, I'll change to a YES. The IANA considerations section says: ----- The IANA is requested to update the Encryption Algorithm Name Registry of the Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Parameters [IANA]. The Registration procedure is IETF Review which is achieved by this document. The registry should be updated as follows: +------------------------------+------------+------+ | Encryption Algorithm Name | Reference | Note | +------------------------------+------------+------+ | arcfour | arcfour128 | arcfour256 +------------------------------+------------+------+ Where TBD is the RFC number assigned to the document. --- I think it would be vastly preferable to include a Note saying something along the lines of: "DEPRECATED" (or "HISTORIC" like for des-cbc). Someone implementing SSH / updating their implementation may look at the IANA page and not read all of the links. |
2019-09-15
|
16 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Thank you very much for writing this -- it's important, well written, etc. Also thanks to Fred for the OpsDir review. |
2019-09-15
|
16 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2019-09-12
|
16 | Benjamin Kaduk | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2019-09-12
|
16 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] (1) Section 1. Per '[RFC4345] specifies and allocates the "arcfour-128" and "arcfour-256" ciphers for SSH', RFC4345 seems to call these allocations … [Ballot comment] (1) Section 1. Per '[RFC4345] specifies and allocates the "arcfour-128" and "arcfour-256" ciphers for SSH', RFC4345 seems to call these allocations “arcfour128” and “arcfour256” (no hyphen). (2) Editorial -- Abstract. Editorial. s/Therefore, this document formally moves to Historic RFC4345/Therefore, this document formally moves to RFC4345 to Historic status/ -- Section 1. s/Historic/Historic status/ -- Section 2. s/The current document updates the status/This document updates the status/ -- Section 2. s/The current document updates [RFC4253] Section 6.3/This document updates [RFC4254 Section 6.3/ -- Section 2. Typo. s/weakenesses/weaknesses/ |
2019-09-12
|
16 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2019-09-12
|
16 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Éric Vyncke has been changed to Yes from No Objection |
2019-09-12
|
16 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2019-09-05
|
16 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-09-04
|
16 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Don’t forget to schedule a management item on the telechat for moving 4345 to Historic. (Never mind... I see the status-change doc now.) |
2019-09-04
|
16 | Barry Leiba | Ballot comment text updated for Barry Leiba |
2019-09-04
|
16 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Don’t forget to schedule a management item on the telechat for moving 4345 to Historic. |
2019-09-04
|
16 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2019-09-04
|
16 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2019-09-03
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-09-19 |
2019-08-02
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2019-08-01
|
16 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2019-07-31
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-08-08 |
2019-07-31
|
16 | Benjamin Kaduk | Ballot has been issued |
2019-07-31
|
16 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-07-31
|
16 | Benjamin Kaduk | Created "Approve" ballot |
2019-07-31
|
16 | Benjamin Kaduk | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-07-31
|
16 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-16.txt |
2019-07-31
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-31
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , Loganaden Velvindron , curdle-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-07-31
|
16 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2019-07-30
|
15 | Benjamin Kaduk | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The requested status is BCP. The status can be discussed but this is the status that reached consensus for "Deprecate 3DES and RC4 in Kerberos" draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05. This draft achieves similar goals and as such the status is appropriated. (2) 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 Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document deprecates RC4 in Secure Shell (SSH). Therefore, this document updates [RFC4253], and formally obsoletes and moves to Historic [RFC4345]. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? None opposed. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? The draft mostly recommend removing some codes. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Daniel Migault is the shepherd of the draft. Benjamin Kaduk is the responsible area director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No, the draft is pretty straight forward and had significant reviews. It also has an existing implementation. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. I have no issues regarding the draft. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. The draft has two co-authors: * Loganaden Velvindron confirm he is not aware of any IPR and was the most active author. * Luis Camara has not confirmed yet he is not aware of any IPR. However, Luis has not been responsive for some time, as such I am not expecting responses from him. While we may miss one IPR statement from one co-author. I hardly see how IPR could be related to this draft. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. See above (9) 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 were no controversy. (10) 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 publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. no nits were found. dnits 2.16.0 /tmp/draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-12.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC4345, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC4345 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC-TBD' is mentioned on line 130, but not defined Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This is not in scope of the document. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references are either informative or normative. (14) 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 plan for their completion? The document references "Deprecate 3DES and RC4 in Kerberos" draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05 as an informative reference. It would be preferred the latest reference become an RFC before the publication of the draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die. This is likely to be achieved as draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05 is pretty much advanced and is in AUTH48 state. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. The current document updates 4253 and obsoletes 4345. This is mentioned in the header, abstract and introduction. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The IANA section is appropriately filled. We chose to place the current draft as the reference for the registry code point. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. The IANA registry requires IETF review which is achieved with this draft. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. no specific check is required by the document. |
2019-03-27
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Shepherding AD changed to Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-03-07
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2019-01-16
|
15 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2019-01-16
|
15 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-15.txt |
2019-01-16
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-01-16
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , Loganaden Velvindron |
2019-01-16
|
15 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2019-01-09
|
14 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2019-01-08
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2019-01-08
|
14 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. In the Encryption Algorithm Names registry on the Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters/ three, existing registrations are to have their references changed. arcfour is to be changed from RFC4253 to [ RFC-to-be ] arcfour128 is to be changed from RFC4345 to [ RFC-to-be ] arcfour256 is to be changed from RFC4345 to [ RFC-to-be ] The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2019-01-04
|
14 | Aanchal Malhotra | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Aanchal Malhotra. Sent review to list. |
2019-01-03
|
14 | Fred Baker | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Fred Baker. Sent review to list. |
2019-01-03
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
2019-01-03
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
2018-12-27
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Fernando Gont |
2018-12-27
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Fernando Gont |
2018-12-27
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Aanchal Malhotra |
2018-12-27
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Aanchal Malhotra |
2018-12-26
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2018-12-26
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-01-09): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: ekr@rtfm.com, Daniel Migault , curdle-chairs@ietf.org, curdle@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-01-09): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: ekr@rtfm.com, Daniel Migault , curdle-chairs@ietf.org, curdle@ietf.org, daniel.migault@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Deprecating RC4 in Secure Shell (SSH)) to Best Current Practice The IESG has received a request from the CURves, Deprecating and a Little more Encryption WG (curdle) to consider the following document: - 'Deprecating RC4 in Secure Shell (SSH)' as Best Current Practice The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-01-09. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document deprecates RC4 in Secure Shell (SSH). Therefore, this document formally obsoletes and moves to Historic RFC4345. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2018-12-26
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2018-12-26
|
14 | Eric Rescorla | Last call was requested |
2018-12-26
|
14 | Eric Rescorla | Last call announcement was generated |
2018-12-26
|
14 | Eric Rescorla | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-12-26
|
14 | Eric Rescorla | Ballot writeup was generated |
2018-12-26
|
14 | Eric Rescorla | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2018-12-25
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-12-25
|
14 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-14.txt |
2018-12-25
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-12-25
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , Loganaden Velvindron |
2018-12-25
|
14 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2018-12-25
|
14 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2018-12-21
|
13 | Eric Rescorla | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2018-12-21
|
13 | Eric Rescorla | Waiting on one more change. |
2018-11-20
|
13 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-11-20
|
13 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-13.txt |
2018-11-20
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-11-20
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , Loganaden Velvindron |
2018-11-20
|
13 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2018-11-04
|
12 | Eric Rescorla | Rich version of this review at: https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3874 I have some minor comments here. COMMENTS S 1. > > The usage of RC4 suites … Rich version of this review at: https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3874 I have some minor comments here. COMMENTS S 1. > > The usage of RC4 suites ( also designated as arcfour ) for SSH are > specified in [RFC4253] and [RFC4345]. [RFC4253] specifies the > allocation of the "arcfour" cipher for SSH. [RFC4345] specifies and > allocates the the "arcfour-128" and "arcfour-256" ciphers for SSH. > RC4 encryption is steadily weakening in cryptographic strength Nit: I'm not sure it's steadily weakening. Are we really learning more about the weaknesses in the cipher or just getting better at exploiting them? S 2. > [RFC4253] defines the "arcfour" ciphers with the text mentioned > below: > > The "arcfour" cipher is the Arcfour stream cipher with 128-bit keys. > The Arcfour cipher is believed to be compatible with the RC4 cipher > [SCHNEIER]. Arcfour (and RC4) has problems with weak keys, and I feel like at this point we can say it's more than believed. |
2018-11-04
|
12 | Eric Rescorla | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
2018-10-15
|
12 | Daniel Migault | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The requested status is BCP. The status can be discussed but this is the status that reached consensus for "Deprecate 3DES and RC4 in Kerberos" draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05. This draft achieves similar goals and as such the status is appropriated. (2) 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 Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document deprecates RC4 in Secure Shell (SSH). Therefore, this document updates [RFC4253], and formally obsoletes and moves to Historic [RFC4345]. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? None opposed. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? The draft mostly recommend removing some codes. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Daniel Migault is the shepherd of the draft. Eric Rescorla is the responsible area director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No, the draft is pretty straight forward and had significant reviews. It also has an existing implementation. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. I have no issues regarding the draft. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. The draft has two co-authors: * Loganaden Velvindron confirm he is not aware of any IPR and was the most active author. * Luis Camara has not confirmed yet he is not aware of any IPR. However, Luis has not been responsive for some time, as such I am not expecting responses from him. While we may miss one IPR statement from one co-author. I hardly see how IPR could be related to this draft. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. See above (9) 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 were no controversy. (10) 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 publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. no nits were found. dnits 2.16.0 /tmp/draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-12.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC4345, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC4345 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC-TBD' is mentioned on line 130, but not defined Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This is not in scope of the document. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references are either informative or normative. (14) 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 plan for their completion? The document references "Deprecate 3DES and RC4 in Kerberos" draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05 as an informative reference. It would be preferred the latest reference become an RFC before the publication of the draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die. This is likely to be achieved as draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05 is pretty much advanced and is in AUTH48 state. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. The current document updates 4253 and obsoletes 4325. This is mentioned in the header, abstract and introduction. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The IANA section is appropriately filled. We chose to place the current draft as the reference for the registry code point. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. The IANA registry requires IETF review which is achieved with this draft. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. no specific check is required by the document. |
2018-10-15
|
12 | Daniel Migault | Responsible AD changed to Eric Rescorla |
2018-10-15
|
12 | Daniel Migault | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2018-10-15
|
12 | Daniel Migault | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2018-10-15
|
12 | Daniel Migault | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2018-10-15
|
12 | Daniel Migault | Changed document writeup |
2018-10-15
|
12 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-12.txt |
2018-10-15
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-15
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , Loganaden Velvindron |
2018-10-15
|
12 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-12
|
11 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-11.txt |
2018-10-12
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-12
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , Loganaden Velvindron |
2018-10-12
|
11 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-05
|
10 | Daniel Migault | Changed document writeup |
2018-10-05
|
10 | Daniel Migault | Changed document writeup |
2018-10-05
|
10 | Daniel Migault | Notification list changed to Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com> |
2018-10-05
|
10 | Daniel Migault | Document shepherd changed to Daniel Migault |
2018-09-24
|
10 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-10.txt |
2018-09-24
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-24
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , Loganaden Velvindron |
2018-09-24
|
10 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2018-09-04
|
09 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-09.txt |
2018-09-04
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-03
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , curdle-chairs@ietf.org, Loganaden Velvindron |
2018-09-03
|
09 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-09
|
08 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-08.txt |
2018-08-09
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-08-09
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , Loganaden Velvindron , curdle-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-08-09
|
08 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-09
|
07 | Loganaden Velvindron | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-07.txt |
2018-08-09
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-08-09
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara , curdle-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-08-09
|
07 | Loganaden Velvindron | Uploaded new revision |
2018-07-30
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-01-29
|
06 | Rich Salz | There was been some mailing list feedback, but now we enter formal WG last call. Please post comments within a week. |
2018-01-29
|
06 | Rich Salz | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from Adopted by a WG |
2018-01-29
|
06 | Rich Salz | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-01-29
|
06 | Rich Salz | Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice from None |
2018-01-26
|
06 | Luís Câmara | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-06.txt |
2018-01-26
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-26
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara |
2018-01-26
|
06 | Luís Câmara | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-10
|
05 | Luís Câmara | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-05.txt |
2018-01-10
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-10
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara |
2018-01-10
|
05 | Luís Câmara | Uploaded new revision |
2017-12-12
|
04 | Luís Câmara | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-04.txt |
2017-12-12
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-12-12
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara |
2017-12-12
|
04 | Luís Câmara | Uploaded new revision |
2017-12-09
|
03 | Luís Câmara | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-03.txt |
2017-12-09
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-12-09
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara |
2017-12-09
|
03 | Luís Câmara | Uploaded new revision |
2017-08-16
|
02 | Rich Salz | IETF WG state changed to Adopted by a WG from Call For Adoption By WG Issued |
2017-08-08
|
02 | Luís Câmara | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-02.txt |
2017-08-08
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-08-08
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara |
2017-08-08
|
02 | Luís Câmara | Uploaded new revision |
2017-08-07
|
01 | Rich Salz | Erroneously accepted by co-chair without formal adoption. |
2017-08-07
|
01 | Rich Salz | IETF WG state changed to Call For Adoption By WG Issued from WG Document |
2017-08-01
|
01 | Luís Câmara | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-01.txt |
2017-08-01
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-08-01
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luis Camara |
2017-08-01
|
01 | Luís Câmara | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-03
|
00 | Rich Salz | This document now replaces draft-luis140219-curdle-rc4-die-die-die instead of None |
2017-07-03
|
00 | Luís Câmara | New version available: draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-00.txt |
2017-07-03
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2017-07-03
|
00 | Luís Câmara | Set submitter to "Luís Câmara ", replaces to draft-luis140219-curdle-rc4-die-die-die and sent approval email to group chairs: curdle-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-07-03
|
00 | Luís Câmara | Uploaded new revision |