Subject: [Ipsec] Discrepency RFC4301 and RFC4305

From: "Vishwas Manral" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 20:04:29 -0800

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

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

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

_______________________________________________
Ipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:22:18 -0800

>RFC's. Should I send an errata for RFC4305 regarding the same?

Unfortunately, it is not errata, it is a desired spec change that we 
missed. You might bring it to the RFC Editor as a spec note, 
certainly including the two references, and see if they will list it 
on the errata page.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 10:45:57 -0500

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

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