Subject: FW: [Ipsec] Discrepency RFC4301 and RFC4305

From: "Vishwas Manral" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 18:57:05 -0800

Hi John,

I am attaching a new thread regarding the NULL auth algorithm on the
IPsec mailing list.

This should probably clarify what I had said in the thread
"draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-11.txt".

Thanks,

Vishwas

________________________________

From: Stephen Kent [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 9:16 PM
To: Vishwas Manral
Cc: IPsec; russ housley
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Discrepency RFC4301 and RFC4305

At 8:04 PM -0800 1/8/06, Vishwas Manral wrote:

	Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
	Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	  boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C614D1.CA0C5D20"

	Hi,

	I had brought out the issue more then a year back that:

	RFC4301 states

	            - confidentiality-only (MAY be supported)

	            - integrity only (MUST be supported)

	            - confidentiality and integrity (MUST be supported)

	However RFC4305 states that NULL authentication support is a
MUST.

	I had brought out the issue with the draft which became RFC4305.
Stephen Kent had supported the change and stated

	"since we changed the requirements for encryption-only support
in this round of document revisions, I think a SHOULD here is correct."

	http://130.230.52.14/list-archive/ipsec/msg05576.html
<http://130.230.52.14/list-archive/ipsec/msg05576.html> 

	however Donald Eastlake had stated

	@@@ I think draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-v3-09 should be changed.

	http://130.230.52.14/list-archive/ipsec/msg05578.html
<http://130.230.52.14/list-archive/ipsec/msg05578.html> 

	The issue never got resolved and we now have this discrepancy in
the RFC's. Should I send an errata for RFC4305 regarding the same?

	Thanks,

	Vishwas

Whoops.  Sorry that this one fell through the cracks in the intervening
year after you noted the discrepancy.

I still think a SHOULD is appropriate for ESP, given the changes in the
architecture document. Since this is a significant change (from a MUST
to a SHOULD), it cannot be an errata, as Paul noted. I'll ask Russ how
he would like to handle this.

Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------