Re: [Cfrg] draft-mcgrew-hash-sigs implementation and findings

[Paul Selkirk <[e-mail]>]

On 04/04/2018 08:16 PM, Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) wrote:
> Ok, I went through all your suggestions (from both reviews), and I've modified the draft accordingly.

Thank you for your kind reply. I look forward to seeing the updated draft.

> so that I ideally won't have to have a -12 version

FWIW, the one draft I was intimately involved with (pcp-base) went to
-29 before it was accepted as an RFC. I don't wish that on you, or
anyone else, but it's a thing that sometimes happens.

> - One thing that was constantly raised was the relative lack of pseudocode.  Part of this is our intentions; we wanted people to understand what the data structures and algorithms are, and if we included any pseudocode, it was with the hope that it would be informative, not normative.

Okay, but in most cases the pseudocode *is* normative - i.e. you can't
implement the draft without implementing some form of the pseudocode;
the text does not adequately describe what needs to happen.

While we're on the subject, section 7 has XDR format definitions for
keys and signatures - are they normative or informative? If XDR encoding
(big-endian, 4-byte padded) is mandatory (which it seems to be), you
might say so in the text.

More comments maybe after more sleep...

				paul