IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9383 <draft-bar-cfrg-spake2plus-08> for your review

Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com> Mon, 01 May 2023 22:41 UTC

Return-Path: <lbartholomew@amsl.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89670C13AE39; Mon, 1 May 2023 15:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lAT8Wa2Vnuda; Mon, 1 May 2023 15:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBCD2C13AE52; Mon, 1 May 2023 15:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A24C3424CD02; Mon, 1 May 2023 15:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rUo9Gq5C0rOE; Mon, 1 May 2023 15:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2601:646:8b00:6b80:d522:c19f:e0da:255f]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A32A424CD01; Mon, 1 May 2023 15:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.200.110.1.12\))
From: Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <DCFFBEFC-524B-4289-AD35-78CB0D8422B4@amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 01 May 2023 15:41:02 -0700
Cc: "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <001796C2-CFCA-490D-826B-F61EACAC35DD@amsl.com>
References: <db11cb98-04d4-601d-7d61-799a88bd9410@rfc-editor.org> <DE8548BF-FDDD-4FA8-850F-6DAEEA8928CE@heapingbits.net> <DCFFBEFC-524B-4289-AD35-78CB0D8422B4@amsl.com>
To: Tim Taubert <ttaubert=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>, "Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)" <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.200.110.1.12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/zB3n-qRjVAH8jM3WhmAecDTbWkQ>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9383 <draft-bar-cfrg-spake2plus-08> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 May 2023 22:41:17 -0000

Dear Tim, Chris, and Eliot,

Per feedback from Watson Ladd re. companion document RFC-to-be 9382, we changed "(setup protocol)" to "(set up the protocol)" in the trace diagram in Section 3.1.  Please let us know any concerns.

The latest files are posted here.  Please refresh your browser:

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383.txt
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383-rfcdiff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383-auth48diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383-lastdiff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383-lastrfcdiff.html

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383-xmldiff1.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383-xmldiff2.html

Thank you!

RFC Editor/lb

> On Apr 11, 2023, at 3:47 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Eliot and Chris.  Thanks for the quick replies!
> 
> Eliot, thanks also for the clarifications.
> 
> Regarding the following:
> 
>>> I believe RFC 9383 is correct, and is how NIST refers to the curves.
> 
> I will pass this info. on (i.e., adding the hyphens in the "For P..." entries) to the folks working on RFC 9382.
> 
> 
>>> I hope it got corrected in production, but 9282 had "Table Table 1" in Section 6
> 
> It was indeed fixed; RFC 9382 looks fine.
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
> 
>> On Apr 11, 2023, at 3:32 PM, Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net> wrote:
>> 
>> +1 to Elliot. P-256 with the hyphen is correct.
>> 
>>> On Apr 11, 2023, at 6:10 PM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 11.04.23 22:46, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
>>>> Hi, Eliot.
>>>> 
>>>> We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
>>>> 
>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9383
>>>> 
>>>> Please note that if we later pick up on any changes to any lines containing "seed" in either of these documents, we will ask the authors about such changes.
>>> 
>>> Ok.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> In the meantime, apologies, but we're not sure what "it may be good to reference such values" means in your note below.
>>> 
>>> Apologies.  What I meant was that the authors could have referenced the appropriate section of RFc 9382 instead of repeating the values.  Let me tell you all what fun it was to compare several long strings of numbers ;-)
>>> 
>>> As to this:
>>> 
>>>> rfc9382.txt:   For P256:
>>>> rfc9382.txt:   For P384:
>>>> rfc9382.txt:   For P521:
>>>> rfc9383.txt:   For P-256:
>>>> rfc9383.txt:   For P-384:
>>>> rfc9383.txt:   For P-521:
>>> 
>>> I believe RFC 9383 is correct, and is how NIST refers to the curves.
>>> 
>>> Also, as an aside, I hope it got corrected in production, but 9282 had "Table Table 1" in Section 6 of https://www.rfc-editor.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-cfrg-spake2-26.txt.
>>> 
>>> Eliot
>>> 
>> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email