[CFRG] Re: Where should test vectors live?

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

For links from RFCs to GitHub, I’ve copied the RFC Editor to get a 
definitive ruling. My feeling is that we wouldn’t want links to 
personal GitHub pages, but it might make sense to link to GitHub repos 
owned by the research group since they’re perhaps more likely to be 
long-term stable. Presumably the github links would be informative 
rather than normative?

For the additional resources, look at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-csr-attestation/ or 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead/ for 
examples (in the Document section). The datatracker lets you, where I 
think “you” is the relevant RG/WG chair, specify the following for 
each draft: faq, github_org, github_repo, github_username, gitlab_repo, 
gitlab_username, jabber_log, jabber_room, mailing_list, 
mailing_list_archive, related_implementations, repo, slack, tracker, 
webpage, wiki, yc_entry, yc_impact, zulip (each can occur multiple 
times).

Cheers,
Colin



On 20 Sep 2024, at 18:28, Christopher Patton wrote:

> Colin,
>
> What would be the contents of the "Additional resources" field? Would 
> it
> just be a link to GitHub? Ideally the RFC itself would tell you where 
> to
> get test vectors: do you think it's inappropriate for the RFC itself 
> to
> link to GitHub?
>
> Chris P.
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Colin Perkins <[e-mail]> 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The datatracker has an “Additional resources” field for each 
>> draft, that
>> can be used to cross-reference to GitHub repos, etc.
>>
>> Colin
>>
>> On 20 Sep 2024, at 1:17, Christopher Patton wrote:
>>
>> Hi CFRG,
>>
>> It occurred to me today that our drafts often have human-friendly 
>> test
>> vectors that look something like this:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9180#appendix-A.1.1
>>
>> These aren't super convenient for a machine. In theory you could 
>> write a
>> script that downloads https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9180.txt and
>> write a parser to pull out the test vectors, but does anyone really 
>> do
>> this? Luckily for RFC 9180 we have a JSON version to work with 
>> instead:
>>
>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cfrg/draft-irtf-cfrg-hpke/refs/heads/master/test-vectors.json
>>
>> How do folks feel about pointing to machine readable test vectors 
>> from an
>> RFC in lieu of producing human-friendly, but machine-unfriendly in 
>> the
>> appendix? Suppose for example an RFC had a pointer to a JSON blob 
>> somewhere
>> on datatracker. Is this feasible/desirable?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris P.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CFRG mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>
>>