Begin forwarded message: > From: The IESG <[email protected]> > Subject: Document Action: 'Brainpool Elliptic Curves for the IKE Group > Description Registry' to Informational RFC > (draft-harkins-brainpool-ike-groups-04.txt) > Date: March 4, 2013 11:27:46 AM PST > To: IETF-Announce <[email protected]> > Cc: RFC Editor <[email protected]> > > The IESG has approved the following document: > - 'Brainpool Elliptic Curves for the IKE Group Description Registry' > (draft-harkins-brainpool-ike-groups-04.txt) as Informational RFC > > This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an > IETF Working Group. > > The IESG contact person is Sean Turner. > > A URL of this Internet Draft is: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-harkins-brainpool-ike-groups/ > > > > > Technical Summary > > The draft allocates code points for four new elliptic curve domain > parameter sets (ECC Brainpool curves from RFC 5639) > over finite prime fields into a registry that was established by the IKEv1 > (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipsec-registry) but is used by other > protocols (IEEE 802.11aa, IEEE 802.11s, RFC 5931). > > Working Group Summary > > The draft was discussed quite controversially on the WG mailing list. > There are persons in the WG that strongly feel > that no further code points should be defined for IKEv1 because the > protocol has been deprecated long ago (by RFC 4306). > Other persons in the WG argued that IKEv1 is still widely used in > practice and, furthermore, other code points have been > assigned previously to the same name space after IKEv1 was obsoleted. No > consensus could be achieved on this topic. On > the other hand, the ADs received an informal liaison statement from IEEE > 802.11 > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1181/) requesting code point > assignments for these curves in the IKEv1 registry. > IEEE standards 802.11aa and 802.11s are using this name space of the > IKEv1 registry, and these specs are apparently not > up for change until 2015. The matter was discussed at the SAAG meeting > among the ADs and the WG members present and it > was decided to publish an internet-draft that requests these code points > but also requires IANA to add a note that they > are not for IKEv1. In the WG discussion following its publication, > concerns were uttered that the note won't be enough > to stop people asking for IKEv1 products to support these new code > points and to prevent implementers to use them for > IKEv1. On the other hand, it was expressed that requiring the IEEE specs > to point to another (new) registry is probably > not possible due to their publishing cycle. Alternative solutions were > discussed, e.g. to include in the registry only a > link pointing to another registry where the actual values are listed. > Eventually, the approach of the draft, i.e. to > include a note "not for IKE" in the registry, was widely considered the > best way forward. > > After some comments on earlier versions, an announcement of a revised > draft on the ipsecme mailing list did not result > in any further comments. > > There was agreement that the draft shall not be a WG document. > > Document Quality > > Some specific comments of Tim Polk were accommodated in a revision. > > Personnel > > The Document Shepherd is Johannes Merkle, the sponsoring AD is Sean Turner. >
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
