Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)
RFC 8247

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) (was No Objection) Yes

Yes (2017-03-15 for -17)
No email
send info
(oops, meant to ballot "yes". Fixed now.)

Section 2.1, 2nd to last paragraph says that ENCR_3DES has been downgraded to SHOULD NOT. But both the table in this section, and the change table later in the draft say MAY.

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -15)
No email
send info

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -17)
No email
send info

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -15)
No email
send info

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -17)
No email
send info

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-02-10 for -15)
No email
send info
Here is Sue Hares' OPS DIR feedback:
Status:  Read for publication with editorial nits (see below)

 

General Comment:  Thank you for this interesting, informative, and well-written draft.  My editorial nits are just places you might improve the clarity of the draft.

 

 

Sue Hares

 

=======================

 

Editorial Nits:

 

#1 – Section 1.3, p 4, paragraph 1

 

Old/The recommendations of this document mostly target IKEv2 implementers

   as implementations need to meet both high security expectations as

   well as high interoperability between various vendors and with

   different versions.  /

 

New: /The recommendations of this document mostly target IKEv2 implementation 

   as implementations need to meet both high security expectations as

   well as high interoperability between various vendors and with

   different versions.  /

 

Note: Either implementation as implementations

         Or  implementers as implementers need to create implementations

 

 

#2 – section 1.3, p. 4,paragraph 2 

 

 

3) Old/ This document does not give any recommendations for the use of

   algorithms, it only gives implementation recommendations for

   implementations./

 

   New /   This document does not give any recommendations for the use of

   algorithms, it only gives implementation recommendations regarding

   implementations./

 

#3 section 3.1, p. 6 , paragraph 2, starting with “ENCR_CHACHA20_POLY1305”

 

   Please expand the abbreviation CRFG.  I believe this this is the first use of the abbreviation. 

 

#4 section 3.4, p 9-10,  several paragraphs in here did not provide the final status

 

4.a p9, last paragraph on page 


old/  Group 14 or 2048-bit MODP Group is raised from SHOULD+ in RFC4307 as

   a replacement for 1024-bit MODP Group. / 

 

new/ Group 14 or 2048-bit MODP Group is raised from SHOULD+ in RFC4307 to MUST as

   a replacement for 1024-bit MODP Group. / 

 

 

4.b p. 9, first paragraph on page, line 1

 

 Old/  Group 19 or 256-bit random ECP group was not specified in RFC4307, as

   this group were not defined at that time.  Group 19 is widely

   implemented and considered secure./

 

New /  Group 19 or 256-bit random ECP group was not specified in RFC4307, as

   this group were not defined at that time.  Group 19 is widely

   implemented and considered secure so Group 19’s status is SHOULD.

 

4.c p.9, paragraph 4, line 

Old/   Group 1 or 768-bit MODP Group was not mentioned in RFC4307 and so its

   status was MAY.  It can be broken within hours using cheap of-the-

   shelves hardware.  It provides no security whatsoever./ 

 

New/ Group 1 or 768-bit MODP Group was not mentioned in RFC4307 and so its

   status was MAY.  It can be broken within hours using cheap of-the-

   shelves hardware.  It provides no security whatsoever. Therefore, its 

   current stsatus is MUST not. 

 

#5 section 4.1, p 12, paragraph 2-4: Final status not indicatd

 

5.a: paragraph 2 

 

Old/   Shared Key Message Integrity Code is widely deployed and mandatory to

   implement in the IKEv2 in the RFC7296./

 

  New:/ Shared Key Message Integrity Code is widely deployed and mandatory to

   implement in the IKEv2 in the RFC7296. The status is MUST. /

 

5.b paragraph 3

 

  Old/ 

   ECDSA based Authentication Methods are also expected to be downgraded

   as it does not provide hash function agility.  Instead, ECDSA (like

   RSA) is expected to be performed using the generic Digital Signature

   method. / 

 

  New/ 

   ECDSA based Authentication Methods are also expected to be downgraded

   as it does not provide hash function agility.  Instead, ECDSA (like

   RSA) is expected to be performed using the generic Digital Signature

   method. ECADSA-based Authentication Methods status is “SHOULD”. /

 

 

 

5.c. paragraph 4 

 

Old:/  DSS Digital Signature is bound to SHA-1 and has the same level of

   security as 1024-bit RSA.  It is expected to be downgraded to MUST

   NOT in the future./ 

 

 

New/ 

   DSS Digital Signature is bound to SHA-1 and has the same level of

   security as 1024-bit RSA.  It is currently at SHOULD NOT, but 

   it is expected to be downgraded to MUST

   NOT in the future./

 

 

5.d paragraph 5 

 

Old/  Digital Signature [RFC7427] is expected to be promoted as it provides

   hash function, signature format and algorithm agility./

 

New/  Digital Signature [RFC7427] is expected to be promoted as it provides

   hash function, signature format and algorithm agility. Its current status is SHOULD.

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -15)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -17)
No email
send info

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -17)
No email
send info

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -17)
No email
send info

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -17)
No email
send info

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -17)
No email
send info