The latest revision of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis -15 was published a week
ago. I haven't seen any additional discussion of the draft since then. I'd
like to conclude the WGLC on this draft and progress it to the IESG. Before I
do so, are there any unresolved remaining concerns with the draf
Hi Tero,
> | RSASSA-PSS with Empty Parameters | MUST NOT | |
> | RSASSA-PSS with Default Parameters | MUST NOT | |
>
> Well, I'm a confused with these requirements. As far as I
> understand the RSASSA-PSS parameters default to using a SHA1 for
> both hashAlgorithm
Paul Wouters writes:
> > Section 4.2
> >
> > | RSASSA-PSS with Empty Parameters | MUST NOT | |
> > | RSASSA-PSS with Default Parameters | MUST NOT | |
> >
> > Well, I'm a confused with these requirements. As far as I
> > understand the RSASSA-PSS parameters default t
Hi Paul,
We have kept key lengths out of the tables on purpose. It matches the
tables at IANA that also do not list separate items for different key
lengths. Would "This requirement" instead of "This requirement level"
make that more clear?
If you don't want to add key length column to the tab
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Valery Smyslov wrote:
here is my review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-13.
I didn't participate in the recent discussions,
so I'm acting here more or less like "fresh" reader.
Thanks for the review!
Overall, I think that the document is in a good shape, however some
ad
Hi,
here is my review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-13.
I didn't participate in the recent discussions,
so I'm acting here more or less like "fresh" reader.
Overall, I think that the document is in a good shape, however some
additional polishing is required to improve its clarity and elimina
On Sat, 3 Sep 2016, Waltermire, David A. (Fed) wrote:
This message starts a Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-11.
The version to be reviewed is
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-11.txt.
Please send your comments, questions, and edit proposal
