< draft-housley-suite-b-to-historic-03.txt   draft-housley-suite-b-to-historic-04.txt >
Network Working Group R. Housley Network Working Group R. Housley
Internet-Draft Vigil Security Internet-Draft Vigil Security
Intended status: Informational L. Zieglar Intended status: Informational L. Zieglar
Expires: August 17, 2018 National Security Agency Expires: August 25, 2018 National Security Agency
February 13, 2018 February 21, 2018
Reclassification of Suite B Documents to Historic Status Reclassification of Suite B Documents to Historic Status
draft-housley-suite-b-to-historic-03 draft-housley-suite-b-to-historic-04
Abstract Abstract
This document reclassifies the RFCs related to the U.S. National This document reclassifies the RFCs related to the U.S. National
Security Agency (NSA) Suite B cryptographic algorithms as Historic, Security Agency (NSA) Suite B cryptographic algorithms as Historic,
and it discusses the reasons for doing so. This document moves seven and it discusses the reasons for doing so. This document moves seven
informational RFCs to Historic Status: RFC 5759, RFC 6239, RFC 6318, informational RFCs to Historic Status: RFC 5759, RFC 6239, RFC 6318,
RFC 6379, RFC 6380, RFC 6403, and RFC 6460. In addition, this RFC 6379, RFC 6380, RFC 6403, and RFC 6460. In addition, this
document moves three obsolete informational RFCs to Historic Status: document moves three obsolete informational RFCs to Historic Status:
RFC 4869, RFC 5008, and RFC 5430. RFC 4869, RFC 5008, and RFC 5430.
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 4, line 46 skipping to change at page 4, line 46
RFC 7030, "Enrollment over Secure Transport" [RFC7030], points out RFC 7030, "Enrollment over Secure Transport" [RFC7030], points out
that the scenarios in the two documents are very similar. that the scenarios in the two documents are very similar.
4.5. Documents that Reference RFC 6460 4.5. Documents that Reference RFC 6460
Three other RFCs make reference to RFC 6460 [RFC6460]. Three other RFCs make reference to RFC 6460 [RFC6460].
RFC 6605, "Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) for RFC 6605, "Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) for
DNSSEC" [RFC6605], states that material was copied liberally from RFC DNSSEC" [RFC6605], states that material was copied liberally from RFC
6460. 6460. The standards-track status of RFC 6605 is not affected by RFC
6460 moving to Historic status.
RFC 7525, "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security RFC 7525, "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security
(TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)" [RFC7525], (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)" [RFC7525],
observes that the Suite B profile of TLS 1.2 uses different cipher observes that the Suite B profile of TLS 1.2 uses different cipher
suites. suites.
RFC 8253, "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the RFC 8253, "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)" [RFC8253], Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)" [RFC8253],
points RFC 6460 for the TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 and points RFC 6460 for the TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 and
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 cipher suites. Both of these TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 cipher suites. Both of these
ciphersuites are defined in [RFC5289], which would have been a better ciphersuites are defined in [RFC5289], which would have been a better
reference. reference. The standards-track status of RFC 8253 is not affected by
RFC 6460 moving to Historic status.
5. Impact of Reclassifying the Suite-B-related RFCs to Historic 5. Impact of Reclassifying the Suite-B-related RFCs to Historic
No interoperability or security concerns are raised by reclassifing No interoperability or security concerns are raised by reclassifing
the Suite-B-related RFCs to Historic Status. the Suite-B-related RFCs to Historic Status.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
No changes are requested to any IANA registries. No changes are requested to any IANA registries.
 End of changes. 5 change blocks. 
6 lines changed or deleted 8 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/