[CFRG] Comments on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-opaque-06
Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Mon, 02 August 2021 15:56 UTC
Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4CC3A0845 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 08:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EcT77z3bpjTU for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 08:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x636.google.com (mail-ej1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::636]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D0C13A0863 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 08:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x636.google.com with SMTP id oz16so31616238ejc.7 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 02 Aug 2021 08:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=vpqmMLk96OeRyhWLL8ykZ2JbCR8wgolq0OKW8CGDlAs=; b=HMVgui2nIKnAWnSBfOMqhj6G8a1dGcjAGcK94dF+g3jXVCsEbT4hM3VJp1uPV3sDAM 8/JmngN2oDEjFM6r6O8Pv4xifCADy/2Yu0+l9nxSS3AmZwrGeTHp2rt0v5F4zxn4fez8 jfEk84k7SOLEdnQXKNG0K5MX1mSUv+L0WxZMmGghaRrJoiMzD5vVVeBaUFRVShykkDhQ XNSosrviat4ry0s1pdxCQip+B/ef5FkprVxHvWh+Zzwn/7v5S65zk/t+1NsHGxbfg2xx QrIA1cQpaQVIhNi6mOWKs1cQ7rUvCYZEFQw1ZHf3VnZbj3Oszd/CPKzaX3VyFKDXv4iz OEtg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=vpqmMLk96OeRyhWLL8ykZ2JbCR8wgolq0OKW8CGDlAs=; b=JGCQn574SWhIBibGgcmPcMf9lDVc6V0Wu0GexftoJzs+7coigror8qBpc97tDkAzrc JpJGL0UqMv7jsz4gceDhTtTVLjMhjMeM+9E6QPJ1TNTO9BygTcZN3EScHaXuXyNdaZPo M6GUgYBF60hL1rjEuBgREfguTpmeMMoQpqUYuECtYSLyqnjWcRVAEC8/pbytwsnNGdoh qvWZ5x9OiUQ08AQ2QJo87AMyc3b3CVNOmCF56UrAb4ojRPEUxS4+ZGpcb4N3ovII6Mo6 8CNLY0LVGLaziS6/ss3f0IfWHBfwZI8wT6hcl/uJzEp0ZKVKNgf7lJckK7NNCaw0hq/K xp7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530wyC5S4BEKnlvfnkshAJQJZXzycZDzURoubyxf9phjiQHXfm9c ZZVKiAkXiRQNm880QYJ34fzfVTAfS8N3ae758MHZAddF
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzz0SfK4xK2LKIVoUD43sTWzT7U+FLA5nECBCzXsB9AJjxy7gO3C5Ew/5Mz07s7+p4Pkr6LjjIci2Ve6zJb08E=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2bd3:: with SMTP id n19mr16467838ejg.232.1627919793761; Mon, 02 Aug 2021 08:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2021 08:56:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CACsn0c=UCa5=hOHOd7WgWLmJ2qoV1RktprUEMMC6DEvi3QeW2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: CFRG <cfrg@irtf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/6mQnooHdj2GsGs14q-YX34QHKcc>
Subject: [CFRG] Comments on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-opaque-06
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2021 15:56:41 -0000
Dear all, I've taken a look and I have two small editorial comments: * Section 2.1. DeriveKeyPair is defined here and in the OPRF draft. That's a bit confusing * Section 4.1: What determines the value of Nm and Nn? Ne will be defined later, but the other ones aren't mentioned in that sentence I personally found it difficult to read and understand the description: there should be some more text of the form "after getting message X, to <compute something for the next phase> the <server|client> does the following", particularly in section 6. This way the reader has an easier time of recalling just where in the flow things are. Otherwise I think the draft is good. Sincerely, Watson Ladd -- Astra mortemque praestare gradatim