Subject: [lamps] Request for review of revised RFC 5759

From: Michael Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:59:07 -0500

The US National Security Agency (NSA) has begun the process of updating 
the "Suite B for..." RFCs to define requirements for implementing and 
configuring IETF protocols in compliance with the 2016 revision of 
CNSSP-15 (the Commercial National Security Algorithm, or CNSA, suite). 
These RFCs are intended for use by commercial product vendors who wish 
their products to be used in US National Security Systems, over which 
NSA has oversight.

As part of this process, the older RFCs will be moved to Historical 
status, and we plan to publish new RFCs via the ISE. We are seeking 
review and comment of the drafts prior to publication, and so will be 
announcing the drafts on appropriate mail-lists as we produce them.

The first draft updates RFC 5759, and addresses requirements for RFC 
5280 compliant public-key certificates and CRLs that contain or 
reference algorithms in the CNSA suite. It is available at 
<https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jenkins-cnsa-cert-crl-profile-01.txt>. 
We would appreciate any comments you might have regarding the draft, 
either via the mail-list or via direct reply.

Mike Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Lydia Zieglar <[email-masked]>
NSA

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 21:15:47 +0000

*   As part of this process, the older RFCs will be moved to Historical status, and we plan to publish new RFCs via the ISE. We are seeking review and comment of the drafts prior to publication, and so will be announcing the drafts on appropriate mail-lists as we produce them.

Interesting question.  I don’t think an independent RFC can make-obsolete an existing WG RFC.

---

From: Michael Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:17:46 -0500

Sorry, I should have been clearer. A separate action (RFC) will be taken 
to move the older RFCs to Historical status. This I-D stands on its own.

Thanks Rich!

On 01/31/2018 04:15 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>   * As part of this process, the older RFCs will be moved to
>     Historical status, and we plan to publish new RFCs via the ISE. We
>     are seeking review and comment of the drafts prior to publication,
>     and so will be announcing the drafts on appropriate mail-lists as
>     we produce them.
>
>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:34:31 -0500

> On Jan 31, 2018, at 4:15 PM, Salz, Rich <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> As part of this process, the older RFCs will be moved to Historical status, and we plan to publish new RFCs via the ISE. We are seeking review and comment of the drafts prior to publication, and so will be announcing the drafts on appropriate mail-lists as we produce them. 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>