The Use of RSA/SHA-1 Signatures within Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)
RFC 4359
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
(Russ Housley) Yes
(Brian Carpenter) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2005-03-17 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
send info
DISCUSS only until shepherd acknowledges these nits. (Personally, I think the RECOMMENDED that Lucy queries is OK) Document: draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-signatures-04.txt Review: Lucy E. Lynch Date: 2 mars 2005 The Use of RSA Signatures within ESP and AH draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-signatures-04.txt "This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication." Very readable document, with a clear statement of need: "Some group applications require true data origin authentication, where one group member cannot successfully impersonate another group member. The use of asymmetric digital signature algorithms, such as RSA, can provide true data origin authentication." The document has some formating nits (see below) NOTES: one question - why is this a recommendation and not a requirement? 2.0 "The use of an ephemeral key pair with a lifetime of the ESP or AH SA is RECOMMENDED. This recommended policy reduces the exposure of the RSA private key to the lifetime of the data being signed by the private key. Also, this obviates the need to revoke or transmit the validity period of the key pair." NITS: idnits 1.60 tmp/draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-signatures-04.txt: tmp/draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-signatures-04.txt(3): Line is too long: the offending characters are 'an Weis' tmp/draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-signatures-04.txt(4): Line is too long: the offending characters are 'Systems' tmp/draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-signatures-04.txt(5): Line is too long: the offending characters are 'y, 2004' Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html : Checking conformance with RFC 3667/3668 boilerplate... * The document seems to lack an RFC 3668 Section 5, para 1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. (Expected a match on the following text: "The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.") * The document seems to lack an RFC 3668 Section 5, para 2 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. (Expected a match on the following text: "Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.") * The document seems to lack an RFC 3668 Section 5, para 3 IPR Disclosure Invitation. (Expected a match on the following text: "The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.") Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt : * The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (Expected a match on the following text: "Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts." ... but found this: "Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet Drafts.") - The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 525 lines Miscellaneous warnings: - The "Author's Address" (or "Authors' Addresses") section title is misspelled.
(Margaret Cullen) No Objection
(Bill Fenner) No Objection
(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection
(David Kessens) No Objection
(Allison Mankin) No Objection
(Jon Peterson) No Objection
(Mark Townsley) No Objection
Comment (2005-03-17 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
send info
Minor nits: The title of this draft is: "The Use of RSA Signatures within ESP and AH" Understanding that this algorithm *may* be used for unicast, it seems that the major motivation of this draft is for use in multicast environments. Should this be better reflected in the title? Also, first letter capitalization for words in the title does not seem to be consistent.