Re: [Cfrg] [irsg] IRSG review request: draft-irtf-cfrg-randomness-improvements-11

Colin Perkins <> Mon, 04 May 2020 22:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D0413A10DD; Mon, 4 May 2020 15:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mTvklTCGDLjA; Mon, 4 May 2020 15:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBEA83A10CB; Mon, 4 May 2020 15:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=mythic-beasts-k1; h=To:Date:Subject:From; bh=1obWc5VYTeqiTsbz/XroXHHUG+sSL71NZbN7C25FFNo=; b=htcxM3MlBqck0zWj32t4Lh939l lmXKkBjBlNQu2SUGVrAzZOT6g1bfAGQ6wvcp/T3kQVUX2dhH7NupoiDJ1o/27osr18/G7CyNmG5ro RbttZXTaaOiok/+QthVcLHa56Kr6AKfmC5z1LgzWZaSmScFzBE1u0UwJpjcxRHHLVY+kx4ExURCap OX+AjfvEdUC1GQVcst21L44sNUfU5ehNm079qjSxTDKYqrKsj6AlDHGyVZooer6m7tk6IRenO42B9 u2lFpVpQ6Gw4SGIzqIH8DnLjGpansHiSKN8MTd4tjnc/0YAm0h1yLxrgEO0hcGvyUCXKXgH1J2L4M h9EOfJWw==;
Received: from [] (port=38636 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <>) id 1jVjHf-0001Xj-3o; Mon, 04 May 2020 23:09:59 +0100
From: Colin Perkins <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8C062135-8544-4493-AFBF-B6DDCC919376"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
Date: Mon, 04 May 2020 23:09:51 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc:, Internet Research Steering Group <>
To: Mallory Knodel <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] [irsg] IRSG review request: draft-irtf-cfrg-randomness-improvements-11
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 May 2020 22:10:44 -0000

Thanks, Mallory!

> On 28 Apr 2020, at 19:21, Mallory Knodel <> wrote:
> HI all,
> I did an IRSG review for this document. I think that the editorial quality is high; this is not a deep technical review. As I read and noted questions, they were all answered later within the text and with clarity.
> For the last two citations there exist URLs even if the documents being cited aren't openly published. I recommend linking to these pages anyway for verification purposes.
> Thanks,
> -Mallory
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 6:44 PM Colin Perkins < <>> wrote:
> IRSG members,
> The Crypto Forum Research Group has requested that draft-irtf-cfrg-randomness-improvements-11 <> be considered for publication as an IRTF RFC. To progress this draft, we now need at least one IRSG member to volunteer to provide a detailed review of the draft, as follows:
>> The purpose of the IRSG review is to ensure consistent editorial and technical quality for IRTF publications. IRSG review is not a deep technical review. (This should take place within the RG.) At least one IRSG member other than the chair of the RG bringing the work forth must review the document and the RG’s editorial process.
>> IRSG reviewers should look for clear, cogent, and consistent writing. An important aspect of the review is to gain a critical reading from reviewers who are not subject matter experts and, in the process, assure the document will be accessible to those beyond the authoring research group. Also, reviewers should assess whether sufficient editorial and technical review has been conducted and the requirements of this process document, such as those described in IRTF-RFCs have been met. Finally, reviewers should check that appropriate citations to related research literature have been made.
>> Reviews should be written to be public. Review comments should be sent to the IRSG and RG mailing lists and entered into the tracker. All IRSG review comments must be addressed. However, the RG need not accept every comment. It is the responsibility of the shepherd to understand the comments and ensure that the RG considers them including adequate dialog between the reviewer and the author and/or RG. Reviews and their resolution should be entered into the tracker by the document shepherd.
>> The IRSG review often results in the document being revised. Once the reviewer(s), authors, and shepherd have converged on review comments, the shepherd starts the IRSG Poll on whether the document should be published.
> Please respond to this message if you’re able to perform such a review, and indicate the approximate time-frame by which you’ll be able to complete it. The document shepherd write-up is available at <>
> Thanks!
> Colin (as IRTF chair)
> -- 
> Colin Perkins
> <>
> -- 
> Mallory Knodel
> CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780