Re: [Cfrg] Rev RFC 7539?

+1 - if you got the cycles.

spt

> On Nov 14, 2016, at 15:55, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> 
> This seems like a good plan.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
> 
> RFC 7539 (“ChaCha20 and Poly1305 for IETF Protocols”)[1] is now implemented in many places and referenced by 3 RFCs and 8 Internet Drafts ([2])
> 
> However, the quality of the document is not where we’d like it to be. There have been 7 errata filed against it. Most of it is editorial or insignificant, but still no errata is better than some errata.
> 
> So what do the participants and chairs think about spinning up a quick[4] rfc7539bis that has the same text, except that the errata will be merged in?
> 
> I think such a document should be fairly easy and quick.
> 
> Yoav
> 
> P.S: and yes, of course I’m volunteering to write it.
> 
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7539
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7539/referencedby/
> [3] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7539
> [4] My spell check actually corrected “quick” to “quic”. The contents of my mails are veering far away from regular English.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg