Padding Policies for Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))
draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-10-09
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2018-09-12
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2018-08-22
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2018-08-01
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2018-08-01
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2018-08-01
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2018-08-01
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2018-08-01
|
06 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2018-08-01
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2018-08-01
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2018-08-01
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2018-08-01
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-07-19
|
06 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS |
2018-07-19
|
06 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Eric Rescorla has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2018-07-19
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-07-19
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2018-07-19
|
06 | Alexander Mayrhofer | New version available: draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-06.txt |
2018-07-19
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-07-19
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alexander Mayrhofer |
2018-07-19
|
06 | Alexander Mayrhofer | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-21
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'Team Will not Review Version' |
2018-06-21
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2018-06-21
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-06-21
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2018-06-21
|
05 | Ignas Bagdonas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas |
2018-06-21
|
05 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2018-06-20
|
05 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2018-06-20
|
05 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2018-06-20
|
05 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] At risk of triggering suggestions that there is an echo in the room: This document is targetting Experimental status. Is there a way … [Ballot comment] At risk of triggering suggestions that there is an echo in the room: This document is targetting Experimental status. Is there a way to know when the experiment has ended and/or what the conclusion is? I know this document does not claim to be exhaustive, but I wonder if there was any consideration for a "random multiple fixed block length padding", where a fixed block length is used, but the padded message does not always use the smallest multiple of the block length that will fit the message. That is, sometimes there is an extra block length or three of padding after the "normal" padding to get to the block length. (This strategy is quite closly related to Random Block Length Padding, where the candidate block lengths are multiples of the single "fixed" block length, but I cannot convince myself that the two are completely identical.) Section 4.1 The Block Size will interact with the MTU size. Especially for length values that are a large fraction of the MTU, unless the block length is chosen so that a multiple just fits into the MTU, Block Padding may cause unneccessary fragmentation for UDP based delivery. Also, chosing a block length larger than the MTU of course always forces to always fragment. This paragraph is (modulo two words) a duplication of a previous paragrpah in this section; I think this one (the penultimate paragraph) should be removed. Section 7 No matter how carefully a client selects their Padding policy, this effort can be jeopardized if the server chooses to apply an ineffective Padding policy to the corresponding response packets. Therefore, a client applying Padding may want to choose a DNS server which does apply at least an equally effective Padding policy on responses. Is there any way for the client to determine the behavior of DNS servers in this matter other than trial-and-error? Perhaps some additional text would be helpful. [...] Counter-measures against such other side channels could include injecting artificial "cover traffic" into the stream of DNS messages, or delaying DNS responses by a certain amount of jitter. Such strategies are out of scope of this document. Additionally, there is neither enough theoretic analysis nor experimental data available to recommend any such countermeasures. (This seems very closly aligned with Eric's DISCUSS.) My understanding is that in general, random jitter is not actually very helpful in this regard. So I'm curious to hear a summary of the WG discussions on this strategy. |
2018-06-20
|
05 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2018-06-20
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2018-06-19
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] (I might ballot "yes" on a more mature version of this as standards track or BCP, should one be offered :-) ) Why … [Ballot comment] (I might ballot "yes" on a more mature version of this as standards track or BCP, should one be offered :-) ) Why is this experimental? What is the nature of the experiment? Even if it's just to get more operational experience, it's worth saying that explicitly. §2: There are a number of lower-case versions of normative keywords. Please consider the boilerplate from RFC 8174. §A.2: ' "Fixed Length Padding" MUST NOT be used except for experimental applications.' This entire draft is experimental. |
2018-06-19
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2018-06-19
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2018-06-18
|
05 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot discuss] Rich version of this review at: https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3169 I am marking this DISCUSS because it appears to endorse Random padding, which is known to … [Ballot discuss] Rich version of this review at: https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3169 I am marking this DISCUSS because it appears to endorse Random padding, which is known to be an unsafe practice. DETAIL S 4.2.2. > Disadvantage: This policy requires a good source of (pseudo) random > numbers which can keep up with the required message rates. > Especially on busy servers, this may be a hindrance. > > According to the limited empirical data available, Random Length > Padding performs slightly worse than Block Length Padding. Random padding allows an attacker who can observe a large number of requests to infer the length of the original value by observing the distribution of total lengths. |
2018-06-18
|
05 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot comment] S 4.1. > consider that even the zero-length EDNS(0) Padding Option increases > the length of the packet by … [Ballot comment] S 4.1. > consider that even the zero-length EDNS(0) Padding Option increases > the length of the packet by 4 octets. > > Options: Block Length - values between 16 and 128 octets for the > queries seem reasonable, responses will require larger block sizes > (see [dkg-padding-ndss] and above for a discussion). Above, you have SHOULD 128 which is very different from 16 bytes. Why would I ever pad to 16 bytes? S 4.1. > (see [dkg-padding-ndss] and above for a discussion). > > Very large block lengths will have confidentiality properties similar > to the "Maximal Length Padding" strategy (Section 4.2.1), since > almost all messages will fit into a single block. In that case, > reasonable values may be 288 bytes for the query (the maximum size of Reasonable values of what? "block size"? You say above that up to 128 is reasonable which implies that 288 is unreasonable S 4.1. > > Disadvantage: Given an unpadded message and the block size of the > padding (which is assumed to be public knowledge once a server is > reachable), the size of a padded message can be predicted. > Therefore, minimum and maximum length of the unpadded message are > known. Isn't maximum always known, because it has to fit within the message. S 4.2.1. > the server. Depending on the negotiated size, this strategy will > commonly exceed the MTU, and then result in a consistent number of > fragments reducing delivery probability when datagram based transport > (such as UDP) is used. > > Maximal Length Padding is NOT RECOMMENDED. If this is "sensible:, why is it not recommended? S 4.2.2. > Advantages: Theoretically, this policy should create a natural > "distribution" of message sizes. > > Disadvantage: This policy requires a good source of (pseudo) random > numbers which can keep up with the required message rates. > Especially on busy servers, this may be a hindrance. This does not seem like a real issue. By assumption, you are operating over TLS, in which case you have a secret which you can use to drive your PRNG. That should be rather faster than running the crypto for TLS. S 4.2.3. > > Disadvantage: Requires more implementation effort compared to simple > Block Length Padding > > Random Block Length Padding (as other combinations of padding > strategies) requires further empirical study. This does not seem like it is a good strategy. The only advantage seems to be not requiring as much randomness, but as above, this is not a real issue. |
2018-06-18
|
05 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
2018-06-18
|
05 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Firstly, thank you for writing this, and also for addressing Joe Clarke's OpsDir notes (and, obviously, thanks to Joe for the review!). I … [Ballot comment] Firstly, thank you for writing this, and also for addressing Joe Clarke's OpsDir notes (and, obviously, thanks to Joe for the review!). I have a clarifying question and some nits: Section 4.2.2: " According to the limited empirical data available, Random Length Padding performs slightly worse than Block Length Padding." Performs slightly worse along what axis? I'm assuming "the server can answer less queries per second", but could also be "uses more RAM", "higher CPU", "explodes randomly", etc. I don't really think that this needs to be addressed, but if you are editing it anyway, and have an easy way to improve it... Oh, Appendix A made me laugh :-) Other than that, some nits: 1: Section 3. General Guidance "EDNS(0) options space: The maximum message length as dictated by protocol limitation limits the space for EDNS(0) options." This flows a little oddly - perhaps "The maximum message length as dictated by the protocol limits the space..." (unless the "limitation limits" entertains you...) 2: Section 4.1: "Note that the recommendation above applies only if DNS transport is encrypted." I suggest "if the DNS transport..." |
2018-06-18
|
05 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2018-06-18
|
05 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] I'm not sure why this document is experimental. It does not appear to me that it is important to use one common scheme … [Ballot comment] I'm not sure why this document is experimental. It does not appear to me that it is important to use one common scheme everywhere and therefore just giving a recommendation in an informational doc seems appropriate. I guess with more experience the right next step would be to publish an BCP at some point. The wording on MTU is rather weak in this document, given RFC7830 says: "However, padded DNS messages MUST NOT exceed the number of octets specified in the Requestor's Payload Size field encoded in the RR Class Field (see Sections 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 of [RFC6891])." Maybe be more explicit here. Also the paragraph on MTU and fragmentation appears twice in this doc. |
2018-06-18
|
05 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2018-06-17
|
05 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] I am bordering on "Yes" for this one. |
2018-06-17
|
05 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2018-06-11
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Telechat review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Magnus Westerlund. Sent review to list. |
2018-06-07
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Telechat review by TSVART is assigned to Magnus Westerlund |
2018-06-07
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Telechat review by TSVART is assigned to Magnus Westerlund |
2018-05-31
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2018-05-31
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2018-05-31
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-06-21 |
2018-04-27
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2018-04-26
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2018-04-24
|
05 | Terry Manderson | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2018-04-24
|
05 | Terry Manderson | Ballot has been issued |
2018-04-24
|
05 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2018-04-24
|
05 | Terry Manderson | Created "Approve" ballot |
2018-04-24
|
05 | Terry Manderson | Ballot writeup was changed |
2018-04-13
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2018-04-13
|
05 | Alexander Mayrhofer | New version available: draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-05.txt |
2018-04-13
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-04-13
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alexander Mayrhofer |
2018-04-13
|
05 | Alexander Mayrhofer | Uploaded new revision |
2018-04-05
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Charlie Kaufman. |
2018-04-04
|
04 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Magnus Westerlund. Sent review to list. |
2018-04-04
|
04 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Magnus Westerlund |
2018-04-04
|
04 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Magnus Westerlund |
2018-04-04
|
04 | Magnus Westerlund | Requested Last Call review by TSVART |
2018-04-04
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2018-03-26
|
04 | Joe Clarke | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Joe Clarke. Sent review to list. |
2018-03-26
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2018-03-26
|
04 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-04, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-04, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2018-03-26
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joe Clarke |
2018-03-26
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joe Clarke |
2018-03-22
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2018-03-22
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2018-03-22
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Charlie Kaufman |
2018-03-22
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Charlie Kaufman |
2018-03-21
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2018-03-21
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-04-04): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: brian@innovationslab.net, draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy@ietf.org, Brian Haberman , dprive-chairs@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-04-04): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: brian@innovationslab.net, draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy@ietf.org, Brian Haberman , dprive-chairs@ietf.org, dns-privacy@ietf.org, terry.manderson@icann.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Padding Policy for EDNS(0)) to Experimental RFC The IESG has received a request from the DNS PRIVate Exchange WG (dprive) to consider the following document: - 'Padding Policy for EDNS(0)' as Experimental RFC 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 2018-04-04. 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 RFC 7830 specifies the EDNS(0) 'Padding' option, but does not specify the actual padding length for specific applications. This memo lists the possible options ("Padding Policies"), discusses implications of each of these options, and provides a recommended (experimental) option. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2018-03-21
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2018-03-21
|
04 | Terry Manderson | Last call was requested |
2018-03-21
|
04 | Terry Manderson | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-03-21
|
04 | Terry Manderson | Ballot writeup was generated |
2018-03-21
|
04 | Terry Manderson | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2018-03-21
|
04 | Terry Manderson | Last call announcement was generated |
2018-02-22
|
04 | Terry Manderson | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2018-02-13
|
04 | Brian Haberman | Notification list changed to Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, dns-privacy@ietf.org from Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> |
2018-02-13
|
04 | Brian Haberman | (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? … (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? This document is requesting Experimental status. This status is appropriate given that it describes several EDNS(0) padding strategies that may be applicable for encrypted DNS traffic and extensive experimentation is needed to determine which strategy is most applicable. (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: RFC 7830 specifies the EDNS(0) 'Padding' option, but does not specify the actual padding length for specific applications. This memo lists the possible options ("Padding Policies"), discusses implications of each of these options, and provides a recommended (experimental) option. Working Group Summary: The WG process for this document was smooth and well-supported. There have been involved discussions, but the consensus for the final content of this document is strong. Document Quality: The document is driven by empirical research carried out by Daniel K. Gillmor to determine potential padding strategies for encrypted DNS traffic. Several WG participants have indicated a desire to begin experimentation with the recommended padding strategy. Personnel: Document Shepherd is Brian Haberman. Responsible Area Director is Terry Manderson. (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 shepherd reviewed all versions of the document as they were published. The review focused on the clarity of the description of each potential padding strategy and the completeness of the analysis of each strategy. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? There were several in-depth reviews posted to the mailing list and the document shepherd is happy with those reviews. (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. No concerns from the document shepherd. There are two pending edits that will be incorporated into the document at the next revision: 1. Section 4.3 : "This policy requires a good source of (pseudo) which" should be "This policy requires a good source of (pseudo) randomness which" 2. Section 5 : "research performed by Daniel K. Gillmor [dkg-padding-ndss]" can be re-worded as "research described in [dkg-padding-ndss]" (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? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (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? This document represents a strong consensus within the WG. (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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. N/A. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (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? One normative reference is to an external document published on an external website (dns.cmrg.net). (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. No. (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). N/A. (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. None. (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. N/A. |
2018-02-13
|
04 | Brian Haberman | Responsible AD changed to Terry Manderson |
2018-02-13
|
04 | Brian Haberman | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2018-02-13
|
04 | Brian Haberman | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2018-02-13
|
04 | Brian Haberman | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2018-02-13
|
04 | Brian Haberman | Intended Status changed to Experimental from None |
2018-02-13
|
04 | Brian Haberman | Changed document writeup |
2018-02-12
|
04 | Brian Haberman | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2018-02-12
|
04 | Brian Haberman | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2018-02-07
|
04 | Alexander Mayrhofer | New version available: draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-04.txt |
2018-02-07
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-07
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alexander Mayrhofer |
2018-02-07
|
04 | Alexander Mayrhofer | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-22
|
03 | Brian Haberman | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2018-01-17
|
03 | Alexander Mayrhofer | New version available: draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-03.txt |
2018-01-17
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-17
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alexander Mayrhofer |
2018-01-17
|
03 | Alexander Mayrhofer | Uploaded new revision |
2017-11-22
|
02 | Tim Wicinski | Notification list changed to Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> |
2017-11-22
|
02 | Tim Wicinski | Document shepherd changed to Brian Haberman |
2017-09-28
|
02 | Alexander Mayrhofer | New version available: draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-02.txt |
2017-09-28
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-09-28
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alexander Mayrhofer |
2017-09-28
|
02 | Alexander Mayrhofer | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-03
|
01 | Alexander Mayrhofer | New version available: draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-01.txt |
2017-07-03
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-07-03
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alexander Mayrhofer |
2017-07-03
|
01 | Alexander Mayrhofer | Uploaded new revision |
2017-06-08
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2017-01-05
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | This document now replaces draft-mayrhofer-dprive-padding-profile instead of None |
2016-12-05
|
00 | Alexander Mayrhofer | New version available: draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-00.txt |
2016-12-05
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2016-12-05
|
00 | Alexander Mayrhofer | Set submitter to "Alexander Mayrhofer ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: dprive-chairs@ietf.org |
2016-12-05
|
00 | Alexander Mayrhofer | Uploaded new revision |