Status of: draft-ietf-rap-cops-tls-10.txt
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]> Fri, 4 Feb 2005 00:08:17 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rap |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15503C7A090@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> |
Now with proper subject line. -----Original Message----- From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 00:05 To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Cc: Scott Hahn (E-mail); Rap-wg (E-mail) Subject: Status of: The doc is still in IETF Last Call (up till Feb 08). However, the IESG did discuss it on the IESG telechat today. Here are the comments: Harald Alvestrand: Comment: [2005-02-03] Reviewed by Lucy Lynch, Gen-ART No show-stopper comments. Review in document comments. See http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/draft-ietf-rap-cops-tls-10-lynch.txt Basically that says everything is fine, module the RFC-Editor notes that I already have recorded (quite a list). Sam Hartman: Comment: [2005-02-03] Section 9 of rfc 2246 says: In the absence of an application profile standard specifying otherwise, a TLS compliant application MUST implement the cipher suite TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA. Are you sure that's the cipher you want to require people to implement? RSA seems more common today. If that's what you want the current text is fine. So pls let me know if you were indeed aware of that and if that is what you want. I propose that the authors prepare a new revision with any changes they may want to make because of the above, plus the changes below (as discussed earlier). Then be ready to submit to [email protected] BEFORE noon US Eastern on Monday, so it will get posted on Monday and so that we can get it approved on Tuesday. Note that I will be offline for an extended period of time after Tuesday (my tuesday in Europe). Bert on first Page (Status of this Memo): OLD TEXT: --------- ...section 3 of RFC 3667 [RFC3667]. By submitting this... NEW TEXT: --------- ...section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this... ==================================== Section 5.1 OLD TEXT: ---------- <Client-Accept> ::= <Common Header> <KA Timer> [<ACCT Timer>] [<Integrity (C-Num=16, C-Type=2)>] NEW TEXT: --------- <Client-Accept> ::= <Common Header> <KA Timer> [<ACCT Timer>] [<Integrity (C-Num=16, C-Type=2)>] Note also that this new format of the Client-Accept message does not replace or obsolete the existing Client-Accept message format, which can continue to be used for non-secure COPS session negotiations. ====================================== Section 9 OLD TEXT: ---------- For the Integrity-TLS object for Client-Type 0, the IANA shall add the following Flags value: 0x01 = StartTLS NEW TEXT: ---------- The IANA shall add the following C-Num, C-Type combination for the Integrity-TLS object to the registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/cops-parameters: 0x10 0x02 Message Integrity, Integrity-TLS [RFCxxxx] For Client-Type 0, the IANA shall add the following Flags value for the Integrity-TLS object: 0x01 = StartTLS Further, for Client-Type 0, the IANA shall add the following text for Error Sub-Codes: Error Code: 15 Error Sub-Code: Octet 2: C-Num of the Integrity object Octet 3: C-Type of the supported/preferred Integrity object or Zero. Error-Code Error-SubCode Description Octet 2 Octet 3 --------------------------------------------------- 15 16 0 No security 15 16 2 Integrity-TLS supported/preferred ===================================== Section 11.1 OLD TEXT: --------- [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process - Revision 3", RFC 2026, October 1996 NEW TEXT: --------- (delete OLD TEXT) OLD TEXT: ---------- [RFC3280]... NEW TEXT (add citation before RFC3280 citation): ------------------------------------------------- [RFC2753] Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D., Guerin, R., "A Framework for Policy-based Admission Control", RFC 2753, January 2000. [RFC3280]... ============================== Section 11.2 OLD TEXT: --------- [RFC3207] Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over Transport Layer Security", RFC 3207, February 2002. NEW TEXT: --------- (delete OLD TEXT)