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

["Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Colin,

Many thanks for the update!
We'll have a short discussion of the comments with Chris, Cas, Luke and
Nick and update the draft based on the comments. Many thanks for the
comments, Marie-Jose and Mallory!

Colin, one more question. You've added a comment for the draft at the
datatracker: "Revision needed to clarify what is mandatory to implement,
and to address review from Gwynne Raskind." - shouldn't this be
about draft-irtf-cfrg-argon2 (not
about draft-irtf-cfrg-randomness-improvements)?..

Best regards,
Stanislav

On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 01:24, Colin Perkins <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thank you!
>
> Authors: would it be possible to spin a quick revision of the draft to
> address the nits in these reviews?
>
> Colin
>
>
>
> On 4 May 2020, at 23:15, Marie-Jose Montpetit <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hello lists:
>
> My review of draft-irtf-cfrg-randomness-improvements-11
>
> Overall:
> The draft is well written and the solution very understandable. The
> comparison to the existing RFC is 6979 is a very good idea. While the
> application to TLS was most likely the reason the draft was written I am
> aware of issues with PRGs elsewhere notably the FRECFRAME RLC that was
> delayed due to PRG issues. This does not require to be addressed in the
> draft but shows that PRG bugs that impact randomness do need to be taken
> into account.
>
> In the NITs category I found the following missing acronyms definitions:
> DBRG
> EC
> HKDF
> HMAC
> HSM
> TLS
>
> mjm
>
>
> Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D.
> [e-mail]
>
>
>
> On May 4, 2020 at 6:10:47 PM, Colin Perkins ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
> Thanks, Mallory!
> Colin
>
>
>
> On 28 Apr 2020, at 19:21, Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> IRSG members,
>>
>> The Crypto Forum Research Group has requested that
>> draft-irtf-cfrg-randomness-improvements-11
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-randomness-improvements/> 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
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-randomness-improvements/shepherdwriteup/
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Colin (as IRTF chair)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Colin Perkins
>> https://csperkins.org/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Mallory Knodel
> CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
>
>
>
>