Re: [CFRG] Adoption Call: Guidelines for Writing Cryptography Specifications

Hi all,

I support adoption of this draft, and have enjoyed reading it. My remarks
kept mostly getting addressed by the next subsection; the following is
extremely nitpicky.

> For example, when describing group operations using multiplicative
notation, the multiplication symbol * should be used instead of the x
symbol.

Say, some field uses another notation; e.g. [k]P for scalar multiplication
in elliptic curves. Should authors stick with what is familiar in the
context of their specification, or should they try to be consistent with
the recommendations in this draft?

In section 4, I think it might be worth a mention in the discussion on
security guarantees/considerations that interactions with other protocols
need to be considered, also outside of the immediate intended applications
of the protocol (e.g. CMP needs to be mindful of potential interactions
with certificate transparency).

In catering to implementers, can we recommend reference implementations?
(Reference implementations should be documented with their own threat model
/ security assumptions, especially if they forgo e.g. constant-timeness for
the sake of clarity --- you might be able to write a whole other RFC about
that subject).

On test vectors, I would like to slightly sharpen the recommendation and
say that test vectors should specifically exercise the input validation
logic, to avoid inputs that, if accepted,;' lead to security failures (e.g.
group identities). It is covered by "logical pathways" but I feel some
additional attention might be nice.

On the whole, it's a nice, well-written document and I hope it is read and
found instructive by many people. Thanks for putting in the effort.

Cheers,

Thom
PQShield

Op vr 2 jun 2023 om 07:15 schreef Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev <smyshsv@gmail.com
>:

> Dear CFRG participants,
>
> This message is starting 3 weeks adoption call on "Guidelines for Writing
> Cryptography Specifications" draft,
> draft-sullivan-cryptography-specification-00 (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sullivan-cryptography-specification/)
> that will end on June 23rd 2023.
>
> Please send your feedback in reply to this email or directly to CFRG
> chairs <cfrg-chairs@ietf.org> <cfrg-chairs@ietf.org>.
>
> Best regards,
> Stanislav (for CFRG chairs)
> _______________________________________________
> CFRG mailing list
> CFRG@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>