On Wednesday, July 17, 2002, at 08:35 PM, Russell Dietz wrote:
To the IPSec Working Group and Security Area Directors:
The purpose of this letter is to comment on an existing Internet Draft, draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-sha-256-00.txt, dated Nov 2001, co-authored by S. Frankel and S. Kelley. This draft, hereafter referred to as DRAFT-SHA-256 for brevity, defines how to use the new SHA-256 algorithm from NIST (FIPS 180-2) for packet authentication within the ESP and AH mechanisms of IPSec.
Russell,
I'm pretty indifferent to the topic of what ought or ought not be mandatory-to-implement or maybe even standards-track RFC versus informational RFC. I am remarkably indifferent to any of the mathematical parts of your note or Uri's followup.
I do feel pretty strongly that the above referenced draft ought to be permitted to be published, at least as an Informational RFC, so that those folks who choose to implement/deploy it can do so in an interoperable manner.
Trying to prevent people from publishing open specifications for entirely optional-to-implement technology is NOT consistent with the Internet tradition. I would hope that the RFC Editor would apply their own good judgement to an individual request to publish such a document as an Informational RFC if the situation should arise.
Yours,
Ran rja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________ saag mailing list saag@xxxxxxx http://jis.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/saag