Browse Prior Art Database

Guidelines for Cryptographic Algorithm Agility and Selecting Mandatory-to-Implement Algorithms (RFC7696)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000245053D
Original Publication Date: 2015-Nov-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2016-Feb-07
Document File: 38 page(s) / 50K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

R. Housley: AUTHOR

Abstract

Many IETF protocols use cryptographic algorithms to provide confidentiality, integrity, authentication, or digital signature. For interoperability, communicating peers must support a common set of cryptographic algorithms. In most cases, a combination of compatible cryptographic algorithms will be used to provide the desired security services. The set of cryptographic algorithms being used at a particular time is often referred to as a cryptographic algorithm suite or cipher suite. In a protocol, algorithm identifiers might name a single cryptographic algorithm or a full suite of algorithms.

This text was extracted from an ASCII text file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 6% of the total text.

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        R. Housley Request for Comments: 7696                                Vigil Security BCP: 201                                                   November 2015 Category: Best Current Practice ISSN: 2070-1721

              Guidelines for Cryptographic Algorithm Agility             and Selecting Mandatory-to-Implement Algorithms

Abstract

   Many IETF protocols use cryptographic algorithms to provide    confidentiality, integrity, authentication, or digital signature.    Communicating peers must support a common set of cryptographic    algorithms for these mechanisms to work properly.  This memo provides    guidelines to ensure that protocols have the ability to migrate from    one mandatory-to-implement algorithm suite to another over time.

Status of This Memo

   This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force    (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has    received public review and has been approved for publication by the    Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on    BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,    and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at    http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7696.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the    document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal    Provisions Relating to IETF Documents    (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of    publication of this document.  Please review these documents    carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect    to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must    include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of    the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as    described in the Simplified BSD License.

 Housley                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 1]
 RFC 7696        Guidelines for Cryptographic Alg Agility   November 2015

 Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

     1.1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   2.  Algorithm Agility Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

     2.1.  Algorithm Identifiers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

     2.2.  Mandatory-to-Implement Algorithms  . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

       2.2.1.  Platform Specifications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

       2.2.2.  Cry...