Subject: [karp] Reviewers requested draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements-00

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:36:29 +0200

Folks,

draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements-00.txt

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements-00

we could use some input from the participants of the KARP WG to the
extent that the membership of the list does not enitrely overlap with
the opsec WG.

the crypto-requirements document was one of the foundation documents
discussed in the karp bofs and was accepted as a working group document
and last called in the opsec WG. Our AD has requested additional review
so the authors and the document shepherd are soliciting feedback.

for a history and treatment of the document I have included the document
shepherd review.

------------------

Document shepherd writeup for:

draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements-00.txt

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements-00.txt

Prepared by:

Joel Jaeggli

6/21/2010

1.a

The Document Shepherd is Joel Jaeggli, Opsec WG co-chair. The Document
Shepherd has reviewed Draft 00 of
draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements  and concluded that the
document is prepared for IESG  review and publication as an
informational document.

1.b

The document was widely socialized within the routing area working
groups where protocol maintenance is being performed prior to
being brought to the opsec working group. With opsec working group input
the focus has changed somewhat for altering the cryptogrphica protocal
usage of igp protocols to enumerating what the likely requirements
should be and the basis for those recommendations.

1.c

Insofar as the the doucument shepherd is concerned, further review of
future changes in state of cryptogrphic protection for IGP and EGP
protocols should be performed in working groups tasked with the protocol
maintenance activities or in working groups chartered to solve the
cyrpto-problem, such as the karp working group. This document represents
the consensus view of the authors and the working group on what the
requirements for such protocols should be.

1.d

One concern of the shepherd is that the  working title while accurate at
the inception of the document somewhat overstates the fairly modest
goals of the  document in it's present form. The long form title is
altogether more representative of the goals of the document.

	Cryptographic Authentication Algorithm Implementation
        Best Practices for Routing Protocols

1.e

Working group consensus has been solidly behind this draft following
revision is it's current form. Since presentation of the Updated draft
in Aanuary the document has been accepted as a working group document
and subsequently lasted called. Serious objections were not raised in
either case.

Prior to the revision, the draft have been presented in the working
group meeting, discussed on the list, and had received contributions
from working-group participants, however concern with the scope and the
goal of changing protocol specifications in an ops area working group
had precluded acceptance.

1.f

No appeals or discontent are noted in the working group regarding the
current draft at this time.

1.g

IDnits notes the existence of several dated references many of which are
required for historical treatment of the subject matter. Not major nits
are noted.

1.h

The draft divides references between normative and informative. This
document's advancement is not blocked on the advancement of normatively
referenced material.

1.i

The draft makes no requests of IANA. Authentication methods (example
OSPFv2 RFC 2328 Appendix D) are typically reserved through an IANA
registry, so documents referencing this document or subsequent work will
make IANA requests as a product of recommendations made in this document.

1.j

No formal language schema is in use in this document.

1.k

Document Announcement Write-up

Summary:

   The routing protocols Open Shortest Path First version 2 (OSPFv2)
   [RFC2328], Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) [ISO]
   [RFC1195] and Routing Information Protocol (RIP) [RFC2453] currently
   define Clear Text and MD5  (Message Digest 5) [RFC1321] methods for
   authenticating protocol packets. Recently effort has been made to add
   support for the SHA (Secure Hash Algorithm) family of hash functions
   for the purpose of authenticating routing protocol packets for RIP
   [RFC4822], IS-IS [RFC5310] and OSPF [RFC5709].

   To encourage interoperability between disparate implementations, it
   is imperative that we specify the expected minimal set of algorithms
   thereby ensuring that there is at least one algorithm that all
   implementations will have in common.

   This document examines the current set of available algorithms with
   interoperability and effective cryptographic authentication
   protection being the principle considerations. Cryptographic
   authentication of these routing protocols requires the availability
   of the same algorithms in disparate implementations. It is desirable
   that newly specified algorithms should be implemented and available
   in routing protocol implementations because they may be promoted to
   requirements at some future time.

Working Group Summary:

The document was accepted as a workring group item on the mailing list
on 1/24/2010.Working Group last call was performed for two weeks, ending
on 5/29/2010. With no objections.

Document Quality:

The document covers  the use of cryptographic protections in five igp
protocols while it's is likely that the utility of recommendations made
in this document will age or be rendered obsolete at different rates.
Recommendations conveyed by the document are both informational in
nature and temporally limited.