From nobody Thu Dec 10 09:26:36 2020 Return-Path: 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 387D73A02BD for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 09:26:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.4 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 JVueaVWFKhkM for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 09:26:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qv1-f44.google.com (mail-qv1-f44.google.com [209.85.219.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDDDF3A02BB for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 09:26:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qv1-f44.google.com with SMTP id d11so2742074qvo.11 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 09:26:32 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=eaJmbfx8Lbno65lsRM2BYtZ9S+9X/OTyVbB+7ZwUE6o=; b=svoZHGZAVeWJOZ8N3IuteQiC6+MrLltgEB2ACi5gBl4zds8RJO34FGAk0l0TFcTgf/ SSYer9OCFgkKjbvajxdYGYBMg0mdv/BSdlMcGMVqg2MozuN9Zdusy2Qneth5cBfJZvQo ez2NEWUaaV5OTdhmN6by/boLdJBdvc49lj9F9BxMm5YdmzjqNaO+dGnGX+iTbjoP9x9a BAiSrzD+KTutA/iU/TCraVsGnGNxhTSXGuK43sNQG6thLDCo/uesneuwwdVxIiZb+2Cp UQNDIjwQ0lKFLjx8QyZSfMLrkoEd+3WER2YgyWTEW4xjZT7sa9l7/CbAGVri4AbOJK71 m9cg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532DRunSpwJE8SQ9q+dVyaH1pnkSGWoyx6Us5aHz6cZ+fAAkHAU4 xdHLBkPmmcv3BIjnKveGmwadpb+2pR7O98K8riA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzJPKaOAbUAWqT1WacMdhIC5Cvnu70p2RZefdZSc/l8CgVrKDvsPr9mDx8zZzhYXzZlA6by8BhD8j0xxZ07Oe4= X-Received: by 2002:a0c:ee87:: with SMTP id u7mr10137179qvr.21.1607621191596; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 09:26:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Adam Langley Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 09:26:20 -0800 Message-ID: To: "Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" Cc: CFRG Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000f003a05b61f7a0c" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [CFRG] Handling the errata for RFC 7748 X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 17:26:34 -0000 --0000000000000f003a05b61f7a0c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 10:50 PM Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev wrote: > Dear CFRG, > > There are three reported errata for RFC 7748: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5568 > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5651 > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5028 > > The third one (5028) is an editorial one, I am sure that it improves > clarity of the text, therefore, I support it without doubt. > > The first one (5568) is a technical one, with a proposal to change one bi= t > of the input u-coordinate in the hexadecimal representation (to make it > "consistent" with the base 10 representation). However, the author of 556= 8 > has probably missed that implementations of x25519 should "mask" that bit > after taking a u-coordinate as an input - therefore, the existing text of > RFC does not have any errors there. This is exactly the result of unclear > text that is addressed in the abovementioned third erratum > (5028).Therefore, I would propose to reject the erratum. > > The second one (5651) notes that the algorithm description has a mistake > in the description (for calculation of z_2). After implementing the > described algorithm myself (with the MAGMA package) I've obtained the > expected numbers. I suspect that the RFC text is OK, =E2=80=93therefore I= would > propose to reject the erratum. > > Therefore, I'm planning to approve the third one (5028) and reject the > other two errata (5568 and 5651). > I agree with all of the above. Thanks for checking them. AGL --0000000000000f003a05b61f7a0c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 10:50 PM Stanislav= V. Smyshlyaev <smyshsv@gmail.com> wrote:

There are three reported errata for RFC 7748:
https://www.rfc-editor.or= g/errata/eid5568
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5651
https://= www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5028

The third one (5028) is an edi= torial one, I am sure that it improves clarity of the text, therefore, I su= pport it without doubt.

The first one (5568) is a technical one, wit= h a proposal to change one bit of the input u-coordinate in the hexadecimal= representation (to make it "consistent" with the base 10 represe= ntation). However, the=C2=A0author of 5568 has probably missed that impleme= ntations of x25519 should "mask" that bit after taking a u-coordi= nate as an input - therefore, the existing text of RFC does not have any er= rors there. This is exactly the result of unclear text that is addressed in= the abovementioned third erratum (5028).Therefore, I would propose to reje= ct the erratum.

The second one (5651) notes that the algorithm descr= iption has a mistake in the description (for calculation of z_2). After imp= lementing the described algorithm myself (with the MAGMA package) I've = obtained the expected numbers. I suspect that the RFC text is OK, =E2=80=93= therefore I would propose to reject the erratum.

The= refore, I'm planning to approve the third one (5028) and reject the oth= er two errata (5568 and 5651).

= I agree with all of the above. Thanks for checking them.


AGL
--0000000000000f003a05b61f7a0c--