[art] Re: [ippm] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-08

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Mark,
> I'm not sure where and how security algorithms are negotiated.
The configuration of what security algorithms to use is done out of band.
> Maybe it is just me not understanding well the document. And I was wondering, maybe incorrectly, why there is yet another key > exchange and algorithm negotiation mechanism, instead of maybe reusing one we already have.
We ARE reusing one we already have: HPKE.
BTW, there is a minor error in an option length field that one of our team found. I will be updating the draft to reflect this.
Thanks,

Nalini Elkins
CEO and Founder
Inside Products, Inc.
https://www.insidethestack.com
PresidentIndustry Network Technology Councilhttps://www.industrynetcouncil.org 

    On Friday, October 4, 2024 at 10:10:36 AM PDT, Marc Blanchet via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:  
 
 Reviewer: Marc Blanchet
Review result: Ready

I've reviewed this document as an assigned ART reviewer. I'm not an expert in
IPPM nor in security. I haven't seen any issue from the perspective of ART or
i18n. However, I was struggling trying to understand the mapping
between/implementation of appendix A.2 and the wire format described in section
3.3. For example, I'm not sure where and how security algorithms are
negotiated. Maybe it is just me not understanding well the document. And I was
wondering, maybe incorrectly, why there is yet another key exchange and
algorithm negotiation mechanism, instead of maybe reusing one we already have.
However, all these comments are related to security and I let the security
reviewers and ADs to properly handle that perspective.


_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]