[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-cbc-03.txt
I'll check again myself, but where do you think it violates the roadmap?
Presumably proper etiquette is to switch this conversation to the IPSec mailing list.
At 07:11 PM 9/9/98 +0000, you wrote:
>I was horrified to see this posting today, and this message is a formal
>protest against this document being advanced:
>
>> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
>> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 10:46:03 -0400
>>
>> --NextPart
>>
>> Note: This revision reflects comments received during the last call period.
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the IP Security Protocol Working Group of the IETF.
>>
>> Title : The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher Algorithms
>> Author(s) : R. Pereira, R. Adams
>> Filename : draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-cbc-03.txt
>> Pages : 13
>> Date : 08-Sep-98
>>
>> This document describes how to use CBC-mode cipher algorithms with
>> the IPSec ESP (Encapsulating Security Payload) Protocol. It not
>> only clearly states how to use certain cipher algorithms, but also
>> how to use all CBC-mode cipher algorithms.
>>
>Gentlefolk, it cannot "reflect comments", as this document has not been
>through any "last call". Even the WG chose not to advance it during the
>internal last call. It was deliberately _omitted_ from the IESG IPSec
>last call.
>
>If it _had_ been included, then formal appeals processes would have
>prevented publication of any and all documents that reference it, for a
>_VERY_ long time!
>
>(1) If there is a need for a "normative" CBC mode description, this is
> already available as draft-simpson-cbc-01.txt, which has long been
> awaiting publication as Informational (no last call is needed).
>
>(2) Including multiple ciphers in the document makes it difficult or
> impossible to advance. We have often had this problem with "kitchen
> sink" options documents in other WGs.
>
>(3) Several of the ciphers are proprietary, and are not likely to be
> universally implemented, again making it impossible to advance.
>
>(4) The document does not meet the WG doc-roadmap requirements, which
> have been through last call.
>
>(5) Some of the ciphers are "standardized" for 40 bits. The formal
> position of the IETF, after considerable debate, and acclaimation at
> an open IESG plenary, has been that this is unacceptable!
>
>(6) This document is derivative from my own text without sufficient
> attribution. Figures and quotations are plagiarized, from
> draft-simpson-cbc-01.txt and draft-simpson-des3v2-03.txt (or earlier
> versions thereof).
>
>WSimpson@UMich.edu
> Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
>