[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-karp-c...] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Errata]

PROPOSED STANDARD
Errata Exist
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        R. Housley
Request for Comments: 7210                                Vigil Security
Category: Standards Track                                        T. Polk
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                     NIST
                                                              S. Hartman
                                                       Painless Security
                                                                D. Zhang
                                            Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
                                                              April 2014


          Database of Long-Lived Symmetric Cryptographic Keys

Abstract

   This document specifies the information contained in a conceptual
   database of long-lived cryptographic keys used by many different
   routing protocols for message security.  The database is designed to
   support both manual and automated key management.  In addition to
   describing the schema for the database, this document describes the
   operations that can be performed on the database as well as the
   requirements for the routing protocols that wish to use the database.
   In many typical scenarios, the protocols do not directly use the
   long-lived key, but rather a key derivation function is used to
   derive a short-lived key from a long-lived key.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   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
   Internet Standards 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/rfc7210.












Housley, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 1]

RFC 7210               Table of Cryptographic Keys            April 2014


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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.

1.  Introduction

   This document specifies the information that needs to be included in
   a database of long-lived cryptographic keys in order to key the
   cryptographic authentication of routing protocols.  This conceptual
   database is designed to separate protocol-specific aspects from both
   manual and automated key management.  The intent is to allow many
   different implementation approaches to the specified cryptographic
   key database, while simplifying specification and heterogeneous
   deployments.  This conceptual database avoids the need to build
   knowledge of any security protocol into key management protocols.  It
   minimizes protocol-specific knowledge in operational/management
   interfaces, and it constrains where that knowledge can appear.
   Textual conventions are provided for the representation of keys and
   other identifiers.  These conventions should be used when presenting
   keys and identifiers to operational/management interfaces or reading
   keys/identifiers from these interfaces.  This satisfies the
   operational requirement that all implementations represent the keys
   and key identifiers in the same way so that cross-vendor
   configuration instructions can be provided.

   Routing protocols can employ the services of more-generic security
   protocols such as TCP-AO [RFC5925].  Implementations of routing
   protocols may need to supply keys to databases specific to these
   security protocols as the associated entries in this document's
   conceptual database are manipulated.

   In many instances, the long-lived keys are not used directly in
   security protocols, but rather a key derivation function is used to
   derive short-lived keys from the long-lived key in the database.  In
   other instances, security protocols will directly use the long-lived
   key from the database.  The database design supports both use cases.




Housley, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 2]

RFC 7210               Table of Cryptographic Keys            April 2014


1.1.  Requirements Notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Conceptual Database Structure

   The database is characterized as a table, where each row represents a
   single long-lived symmetric cryptographic key.  Normally, each key
   should only have one row.  Only in the (hopefully) very rare cases
   where a key is used for more than one purpose, or where the same key
   is used with multiple key derivation functions (KDFs) will multiple
   rows contain the same key value.  The columns in the table represent
   the key value and attributes of the key.

   To accommodate manual key management, the format of the fields has
   been purposefully chosen to allow updates with a plain-text editor
   and to provide equivalent display on multiple systems.

   The columns that the table consists of are listed as follows:

      AdminKeyName
         The AdminKeyName field contains a human-readable string meant
         to identify the key for the user.  Implementations can use this
         field to uniquely identify rows in the key table.  The same
         string can be used on the local system and peer systems, but
         this is not required.  Routing protocols do not make use of
         this string; they use the LocalKeyName and the PeerKeyName.
         However, if these strings are to be used as protocol elements
         in other protocols or otherwise transferred between systems,
         they will need to follow the requirements of Section 5.1.

      LocalKeyName
         The LocalKeyName field contains a string identifying the key.
         It can be used to retrieve the key in the local database when
         received in a message.  As discussed in Section 4, the protocol
         defines the form of this field.  For example, many routing
         protocols restrict the format of their key names to integers
         that can be represented in 16 or 32 bits.  Typically, this
         field does not contain data in human character sets requiring
         internationalization.  If there ever are any routing Protocols
         with key names requiring internationalization, those
         specifications need to address issues of canonicalization and
         normalization so that key names can be compared using binary
         comparison.





Housley, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 3]

RFC 7210               Table of Cryptographic Keys            April 2014


      PeerKeyName
         PeerKeyName is the name of the key used by the local system in
         an outgoing message.  For unicast communication, the
         PeerKeyName of a key on a system matches the LocalKeyName of
         the identical key that is maintained on one or multiple peer
         systems.  Similar to LocalKeyName, a protocol defines the form
         of this identifier and will often restrict it to be an integer.
         For group keys, the protocol will typically require this field
         be an empty string as the sending and the receiving key names
         need to be the same.

      Peers
         Typically for unicast keys, this field lists the peer systems
         that have this key in their database.  For group keys, this
         field names the groups for which the key is appropriate.  For
         example, this might name a routing area for a multicast routing
         protocol.  Formally, this field provides a protocol-specific
         set of restrictions on the scope in which the key is
         appropriate.  The format of the identifiers in the Peers field
         is specified by the protocol.

      Interfaces
         The Interfaces field identifies the set of physical and/or
         virtual interfaces for which it is appropriate to use this key.
         When the long-lived value in the Key field is intended for use
         on any interface, this field is set to "all".  The interfaces
         field consists of a set of strings; the form of these strings
         is specified by the implementation and is independent of the
         protocol in question.  Protocols may require support for the
         Interfaces field or may indicate that support for constraining
         keys based on interface is not required.  As an example, TCP-AO
         implementations are unlikely to make the decision of what
         interface to use prior to key selection.  In that case, the
         implementations are expected to use the same keying material
         across all of the interfaces and then require the "all"
         setting.

      Protocol
         The Protocol field identifies a single routing protocol where
         this key may be used to provide cryptographic protection.  This
         specification establishes a registry for this field; the
         registry also specifies the format of the following field,
         ProtocolSpecificInfo, for each registered protocol.








Housley, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 4]

RFC 7210               Table of Cryptographic Keys            April 2014


      ProtocolSpecificInfo
         This field contains the protocol-specified information that may
         be useful for a protocol to apply the key correctly.  Note that
         such information MUST NOT be required for a protocol to locate
         an appropriate key.  When a protocol does not need the
         information in ProtocolSpecificInfo, it will require this field
         be empty.  Key table rows MAY specify a Direction of "both".
         As a result, the encoding of this field needs to support
         encoding protocol-specific information for sending and
         receiving in the same row.

      KDF
         The KDF field indicates the key derivation function that is
         used to generate short-lived keys from the long-lived value in
         the Key field.  When the long-lived value in the Key field is
         intended for direct use, the KDF field is set to "none".  A key
         derivation function is a one-way function that provides
         cryptographic separation of key material.  The KDF MAY use
         inputs from the row in the key table and the message being sent
         or received but MUST NOT depend on other configuration state.
         This document establishes an IANA registry for the values in
         the KDF field to simplify references in future specifications.
         The protocol indicates what (if any) KDFs are valid.

      AlgID
         The AlgID field indicates which cryptographic algorithm is to
         be used with the security protocol for the specified peer or
         peers.  Such an algorithm can be an encryption algorithm and
         mode (e.g., AES-128-CBC), an authentication algorithm (e.g.,
         HMAC-SHA1-96 or AES-128-CMAC), or any other symmetric
         cryptographic algorithm needed by a security protocol.  If the
         KDF field contains "none", then the long-lived key is used
         directly with this algorithm; otherwise, the derived short-
         lived key is used with this algorithm.  When the long-lived key
         is used to generate a set of short-lived keys for use with the
         security protocol, the AlgID field identifies a ciphersuite
         rather than a single cryptographic algorithm.  This document
         establishes an IANA registry for the values in the AlgID field
         to simplify references in future specifications.  Protocols
         indicate which algorithms are appropriate.

      Key
         The Key field contains a long-lived symmetric cryptographic key
         in the format of a lowercase hexadecimal string.  The size of
         the Key depends on the KDF and the AlgID.  For instance,
         KDF=none and AlgID=AES128 require a 128-bit key, which is
         represented by 32 hexadecimal digits.




Housley, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 5]

RFC 7210               Table of Cryptographic Keys            April 2014


      Direction
         The Direction field indicates whether this key may be used for
         inbound traffic, outbound traffic, both, or whether the key has
         been disabled and may not currently be used at all.  The
         supported values are "in", "out", "both", and "disabled",
         respectively.  The Protocol field will determine which of these
         values are valid.

      SendLifetimeStart
         The SendLifetimeStart field specifies the earliest date and
         time in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) at which this key
         should be considered for use when sending traffic.  The format
         is YYYYMMDDHHSSZ, where four digits specify the year, two
         digits specify the month, two digits specify the day, two
         digits specify the hour, two digits specify the minute, and two
         digits specify the second.  The "Z" is included as a clear
         indication that the time is in UTC.

      SendLifeTimeEnd
         The SendLifeTimeEnd field specifies the latest date and time at
         which this key should be considered for use when sending
         traffic.  The format is the same as the SendLifetimeStart
         field.

      AcceptLifeTimeStart
         The AcceptLifeTimeStart field specifies the earliest date and
         time in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) at which this key
         should be considered for use when processing received traffic.
         The format is YYYYMMDDHHSSZ, where four digits specify the
         year, two digits specify the month, two digits specify the day,
         two digits specify the hour, two digits specify the minute, and
         two digits specify the second.  The "Z" is included as a clear
         indication that the time is in UTC.

      AcceptLifeTimeEnd
         The AcceptLifeTimeEnd field specifies the latest date and time
         at which this key should be considered for use when processing
         the received traffic.  The format of this field is identical to
         the format of AcceptLifeTimeStart.












Housley, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 6]

RFC 7210               Table of Cryptographic Keys            April 2014


3.  Key Selection and Rollover

   A protocol may directly consult the key table to find the key to use
   on an outgoing message.  The protocol provides a protocol (P) and a
   peer identifier (H) into the key selection function.  Optionally, an
   interface identifier (I) may also need to be provided.  Any key that
   satisfies the following conditions may be selected:

      (1)  the Peers field includes H;

      (2)  the Protocol field matches P;

      (3)  If an interface is specified by the protocol, the Interfaces
           field in the key table row includes I or "all";

      (4)  the Direction field is either "out" or "both"; and

      (5)  SendLifetimeStart <= current time <= SendLifeTimeEnd.

   During key selection, there may be multiple entries that
   simultaneously exist and are associated with different cryptographic
   algorithms or ciphersuites.  Systems should support selection of keys
   based on algorithm preference to facilitate algorithm transition.

   In addition, multiple entries with overlapping valid periods are
   expected to be available for orderly key rollover.  In these cases,
   the expectation is that systems will transition to the newest key
   available.  To meet this requirement, this specification recommends
   supplementing the key selection algorithm with the following
   differentiation: select the long-lived key specifying the most recent
   time in the SendLifetimeStart field.

   In order to look up a key for validating an incoming message, the
   protocol provides its protocol (P), the peer identifier (H), the key
   identifier (L), and optionally the interface (I).  If one key matches
   the following conditions, it is selected:

      (1)  the Peer field includes H;

      (2)  the Protocol field matches P;

      (3)  if the Interface field is provided, it includes I or is
           "all";

      (4)  the Direction field is either "in" or "both";






Housley, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 7]

RFC 7210               Table of Cryptographic Keys            April 2014


      (5)  the LocalKeyName is L; and

      (6)  AcceptLifeTimeStart <= current time <= AcceptLifeTimeEnd.

   Note that the key usage is loosely bound by the times specified in
   the AcceptLifeTimeStart and AcceptLifeTimeEnd fields.  New security
   associations should not be established except within the period of
   use specified by these fields, while allowing some grace time for
   clock skew.  However, if a security association has already been
   established based on a particular long-lived key, exceeding the
   lifetime does not have any direct impact.  The implementations of
   security protocols that involve long-lived security associations
   should be designed to periodically interrogate the database and
   rollover to new keys without tearing down the security associations.

   Rather than consulting the conceptual database, a security protocol
   such as TCP-AO may update its own tables as keys are added and
   removed.  In this case, the protocol needs to maintain its own key
   information.  Some routing protocols use IP Security (IPsec) to
   provide integrity.  If a specification describes how to use the
   conceptual database described in this document to configure keys for
   these routing protocols, similar concerns apply.  The specification
   mapping those routing protocols onto this conceptual database needs
   to describe how the Security Policy Database is manipulated as rows
   are added and removed from the conceptual database.

4.  Application of the Database in a Security Protocol

   In order to use the key table database in a protocol specification, a
   protocol needs to specify certain information.  This section
   enumerates items that a protocol must specify.

      (1) The ways of mapping the information in a key table row to the
           information needed to produce an outgoing message; specified
           as an explanation of either how to fill in authentication-
           related fields in a message based on key table information,
           or (for protocols such as TCP-AO) how to construct Master Key
           Tuples (MKTs) or other protocol-specific structures from a
           key table row

      (2)  The ways of locating the peer identifier (a member of the
           Peers set) and the LocalKeyName inside an incoming message

      (3)  The methods of verifying a message given a key table row;
           this may be stated directly or in terms of protocol-specific
           structures such as MKTs





Housley, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 8]

RFC 7210               Table of Cryptographic Keys            April 2014


      (4)  The form and validation rules for LocalKeyName and
           PeerKeyName; if either of these is an integer, the
           conventions in Section 5.1 are used as a vendor-independent
           format

      (5)  The form and validation rules for members of the Peers set

      (6)  The algorithms and KDFs supported

      (7)  The form of the ProtocolSpecificInfo field

      (8)  The rules for canonicalizing LocalKeyName, PeerKeyName,
           entries in the Peers set, or ProtocolSpecificInfo; this may
           include normalizations such as lowercasing hexadecimal
           strings

      (9)  The Indication whether the support for Interfaces is required
           by this protocol

   The form of the interfaces field is not protocol specific but instead
   is shared among all protocols on an implementation.  If a protocol
   needs to distinguish instances running over the same interface, this
   is included in the specification of peers.  Generally, it is
   desirable to define the specification of peers so that an operator
   can use the Interfaces field to refer to all instances of a protocol
   on a link without having to specify both generic interfaces
   information and protocol-specific peer information.

5.  Textual Conventions

5.1.  Key Names

   When a key for a given protocol is identified by an integer key
   identifier, the associated key name will be represented as lowercase
   hexadecimal digits with the most significant octet first.  This
   integer is padded with leading zero digits until the width of the key
   identifier field in the protocol is reached.  If a key name contains
   non-integer human-readable text, its format and encoding may be an
   issue, particularly if it is used in protocol between two different
   types of systems.  If characters from the ASCII range [RFC20] are
   sufficient for a key name, then they SHOULD be used.  If characters
   outside of that range are desirable or required, then they MUST be in
   an encoding of Unicode [UNICODE].

   In the case of an AdminKeyName that uses characters outside of the
   ASCII range, the AdminKeyName MUST be encoded using UTF-8 [RFC3629]
   and SHOULD be normalized using Unicode Normalization Form KC [UAX15]
   to maximize the chance that the strings will compare correctly.



Housley, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 9]

RFC 7210               Table of Cryptographic Keys            April 2014


   However, simply using Unicode Normalization Form KC is not sufficient
   to account for all issues of string comparison; refer to
   [PRECIS-FRAMEWORK] for additional information.

5.2.  Keys

   A key is represented as a lowercase hexadecimal string with the most
   significant octet of the key first.  As discussed in Section 2, the
   length of this string depends on the associated algorithm and KDF.

6.  Operational Considerations

   If the valid periods for long-lived keys do not overlap or the system
   clocks are inconsistent, it is possible to construct scenarios where
   systems cannot agree upon a long-lived key.  When installing a series
   of keys to be used one after another, operators should configure the
   SendLifetimeStart field of the key to be several hours after the
   AcceptLifeTimeStart field of the key to guarantee there is some
   overlap.  This overlap is intended to address the clock-skew issue
   and allow for basic operational considerations.  Operators may choose
   to specify a longer overlap (e.g., several days) to allow for
   exceptional circumstances.

7.  Security Considerations

   Management of encryption and authentication keys has been a
   significant operational problem, both in terms of key synchronization
   and key selection.  For instance, the current guidance [RFC3562]
   warns against sharing TCP MD5 keying material between systems and
   recommends changing keys according to a schedule.  The same general
   operational issues are relevant for the management of other
   cryptographic keys.

   It has been recognized in [RFC4107] that automated key management is
   not viable in multiple scenarios.  The conceptual database specified
   in this document is designed to accommodate both manual key
   management and automated key management.  A future specification to
   automatically populate rows in the database is envisioned.

   Designers should recognize the warning provided in [RFC4107]:

      Automated key management and manual key management provide very
      different features.  In particular, the protocol associated with
      an automated key management technique will confirm the liveness of
      the peer, protect against replay, authenticate the source of the
      short-term session key, associate protocol state information with
      the short-term session key, and ensure that a fresh short-term
      session key is generated.  Further, an automated key management



Housley, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 10]

RFC 7210               Table of Cryptographic Keys            April 2014


      protocol can improve interoperability by including negotiation
      mechanisms for cryptographic algorithms.  These valuable features
      are impossible or extremely cumbersome to accomplish with manual
      key management.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This specification defines three registries.

8.1.  KeyTable Protocols

   Per this document, IANA has established a registry called "KeyTable
   Protocols".

   All assignments to the KeyTable Protocols registry are made on a
   Specification Required basis per Section 4.1 of [RFC5226].

   Each registration entry must contain the three fields:

      - Protocol Name (unique within the registry);
      - Protocol-Specific Info; and
      - Reference.

   The specification needs to describe parameters required for using the
   conceptual database as outlined in Section 4.  This typically means
   that the specification focuses more on the application of security
   protocols with the key tables rather than being a new security
   protocol specification for general purposes.  Of course, new
   protocols may combine information on how to use the key table
   database with the protocol specification.

   The registry has three columns.  The first column is a string of
   Unicode characters encoded in UTF-8 representing the name protocol.
   The second column is a string of Unicode characters encoded in UTF-8
   providing a brief description of Protocol-Specific Info.  The third
   column is a reference to a specification defining how the protocol is
   used with the key table.

   There are no initial registrations.

8.2.  KeyTable KDFs

   Per this document, IANA has established a registry called "KeyTable
   KDFs".  The remainder of this section describes the registry.

   All assignments to the KeyTable KDFs registry are made on a First
   Come First Served basis per Section 4.1 of RFC 5226.




Housley, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 11]

RFC 7210               Table of Cryptographic Keys            April 2014


   The registry has three columns.  The first column is a string of
   Unicode characters encoded in UTF-8 representing the name of a KDF.
   The second column is a string of Unicode characters encoded in UTF-8
   providing a brief description of the KDF.  The third column is a
   reference to a specification defining the KDF, if available.

   The initial contents of this registry and that in Section 8.3 are
   chosen based on the algorithms defined for TCP-AO [RFC5926].

      KDF             Description                     Reference
      ------------    ----------------------------    ---------
      none            No KDF is used with this key    N/A
      AES-128-CMAC    AES-CMAC using 128-bit keys     [RFC4493]
      HMAC-SHA-1      HMAC using the SHA-1 hash       [RFC2104]

8.3.  KeyTable AlgIDs

   Per this document, IANA has established a registry called "KeyTable
   AlgIDs".  The remainder of this section describes the registry.

   All assignments to the KeyTable AlgIDs registry are made on a First
   Come First Served basis per Section 4.1 of RFC 5226.

   The registry has three columns.  The first column is a string of
   Unicode characters encoded in UTF-8 representing the algorithm
   identifier (AlgID).  The second column is a string of Unicode
   characters encoded in UTF-8 providing a brief description of the
   identified algorithm.  The third column is a reference to a
   specification defining the identified algorithm.

   The initial contents of this registry and that in Section 8.2 are
   chosen based on the algorithms defined for TCP-AO [RFC5926].

      AlgID             Description                          Reference
      ------------      ---------------------------------    ---------
      AES-128-CMAC      AES-CMAC using 128-bit keys          [RFC4493]
      AES-128-CMAC-96   AES-128-CMAC truncated to 96 bits    [RFC5926]
      HMAC-SHA-1-96     HMAC SHA-1 truncated to 96 bits      [RFC2104]













Housley, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 12]

RFC 7210               Table of Cryptographic Keys            April 2014


9.  Acknowledgments

   This document reflects many discussions with many different people
   over many years.  In particular, the authors thank Jari Arkko, Ran
   Atkinson, Ron Bonica, Ross Callon, Lars Eggert, Pasi Eronen, Adrian
   Farrel, Gregory Lebovitz, Acee Lindem, Sandy Murphy, Eric Rescorla,
   Mike Shand, Dave Ward, and Brian Weis for their insights.  The
   authors additionally thank Brian Weis for supplying text to address
   IANA concerns and for help with formatting.

   Sam Hartman's work on this document is funded by Huawei.

10.  Normative References

   [RFC20]    Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", RFC 20,
              October 1969.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [UAX15]    The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard Annex #15:
              Unicode Normalization Forms", Unicode 6.3.0, September
              2013, <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/tr15-39.html>.

   [UNICODE]  The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
              6.3.0", (Mountain View, CA: The Unicode Consortium, 2013.
              ISBN 978-1-936213-08-5),
              <http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.3.0/>.

11.  Informative References

   [PRECIS-FRAMEWORK]
              Saint-Andre, P. and M. Blanchet, "PRECIS Framework:
              Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings in
              Application Protocols", Work in Progress, March 2014.

   [RFC2104]  Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
              Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February
              1997.

   [RFC3562]  Leech, M., "Key Management Considerations for the TCP MD5
              Signature Option", RFC 3562, July 2003.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.

   [RFC4107]  Bellovin, S. and R. Housley, "Guidelines for Cryptographic
              Key Management", BCP 107, RFC 4107, June 2005.



Housley, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 13]

RFC 7210               Table of Cryptographic Keys            April 2014


   [RFC4493]  Song, JH., Poovendran, R., Lee, J., and T. Iwata, "The
              AES-CMAC Algorithm", RFC 4493, June 2006.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5925]  Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
              Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010.

   [RFC5926]  Lebovitz, G. and E. Rescorla, "Cryptographic Algorithms
              for the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)", RFC 5926,
              June 2010.

Authors' Addresses

   Russell Housley
   Vigil Security, LLC
   918 Spring Knoll Drive
   Herndon, VA 20170
   USA
   EMail: housley@vigilsec.com

   Tim Polk
   National Institute of Standards and Technology
   100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8930
   Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930
   USA
   EMail: tim.polk@nist.gov

   Sam Hartman
   Painless Security, LLC
   USA
   EMail: hartmans-ietf@mit.edu

   Dacheng Zhang
   Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
   China
   EMail: zhangdacheng@huawei.com












Housley, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/