Re: [Cfrg] Fwd: Rev RFC 7539?

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 18 January 2017 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 7E1C81294E3 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:30:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 bcjTF1ytAE9m for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:30:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34834129401 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:30:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24B9300290 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:19:47 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id Csr3xij9hwFq for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:19:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A04ED300258; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:19:45 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <D4A3AE19.7E167%kenny.paterson@rhul.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:30:04 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <78E7520D-B2AA-4C0F-8581-52D6E7637674@vigilsec.com>
References: <46ECD4D0-07BB-4082-82AC-4B2AE656AE09@gmail.com> <A57288FC-C629-472F-8394-DB58C45EEC25@gmail.com> <D4A3AE19.7E167%kenny.paterson@rhul.ac.uk>
To: IRTF CFRG <cfrg@irtf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/LXuJJ9b6HPaom4TVSlyfMktBFMo>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Fwd: Rev RFC 7539?
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:30:05 -0000

Document: draft-nir-cfrg-rfc7539bis-00
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2017-01-19

Summary: Almost Ready

Major Concerns:

The Abstract says that there are additions to the Security
Considerations; however, I do not see a difference between the
Security Considerations in this document and RFC 7539.


Minor Concerns:

In Section 2.3.1, please add a sentence to define the "|" operator
in a manner similar to the definition for "+" in Section 2.1.


Nits:

Abstract: s/any new crypto/any new cryptographic mechanisms/

Section 2.1 uses "rotation" and "roll" to describe the same operation.
Please pick one term.

In Sections 2.1 and 2.3, I do not think that the line numbers aid the
reader. I think that simple indention would be better.

In Sections 2.1 and 2.1.1, I do not think that the bullets aid the
reader.  I think that simple indention would be better.

Section 2.5.1 includes: r = (le_bytes_to_num(key[0..15]).
I think you want to drop the leading parenthesis.

In Author's address, please capitalize "st."