Re: [Cfrg] Introduction, and some concerns regarding draft-irtf-cfrg-argon2

Hi Gwynne,

thanks a lot for so much details! I have tried to incorporate everything to
the last version.

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 4:05 AM Gwynne Raskind <gwynne@darkrainfall.org>
wrote:

> Apologies for the noise, but I just discovered a couple of errors in my
> notes (as was certain to happen the moment I sent them, no doubt :) ).
> Rather than send another attachment to the list and most likely end
> up having to replace that as well, I've posted the revised content as a
> Gist, found here: <
> https://gist.github.com/gwynne/d596cb9712849cdc033084b2eebaf680>. From
> now on this link will always provide the most up to date revision of the
> document.
>
> -- Gwynne Raskind
>
> On Apr 28, 2020, at 19:53, Gwynne Raskind <gwynne@darkrainfall.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks to everyone for their encouragement! I've attached my edited set of
> notes in Markdown format (I can provide it in alternative form if desired).
> I have tried to restrain this initial set of notes mostly to the most
> critical issues, as I've been known to end up simply rewriting entire
> documents if I don't keep myself in check (and frankly this draft has
> tempted me greatly in that regard) ^^; Please don't hesitate to ask any
> questions if there's anything that needs clarifying. I hope you find these
> notes helpful!
>
> (P.S.: If the mailing list strips attachments, as I know many do, I
> welcome suggestions as to the best alternative for making the document
> available - my first instinct would be to post it as a GitHub Gist and send
> its link to the list instead.)
>
> <draft-argon2-deconstruction.md>
>
> -- Gwynne Raskind
>
> On Apr 27, 2020, at 17:32, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> wrote:
>
> I agree – this draft is close to publication as an RFC, so if there are
> corrections and/or clarifications needed, then it would be useful to get
> feedback so they can be incorporated before publication.
>
> Colin
>
>
>
> On 27 Apr 2020, at 18:45, Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) <
> sfluhrer=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> I haven’t seen any public responses, and so, while I’m not an editor of
> this particular draft, I’d like to reply to your concerns.
>
> We would love to hear your critiques, both about minor errors such as
> typos, in addition to more major problems, such as ambiguities in the
> specification.
>
> One major reason these drafts are published is to get them correct; by
> helping us make the draft better, you are helping us a great deal.
>
> And, there isn’t any secret handshakes to work on this mailing list; we
> welcome everyone.  And you are certainly not out of line.
>
> I look forward to hearing your corrections and your suggestions.  Thank
> you.
>
> *From:* Cfrg <cfrg-bounces@irtf.org> *On Behalf Of *Gwynne Raskind
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 26, 2020 9:40 AM
> *To:* cfrg@irtf.org
> *Subject:* [Cfrg] Introduction, and some concerns regarding
> draft-irtf-cfrg-argon2
>
> Hello!
>
> My name is Gwynne Raskind; I'm a software engineer with a fairly wide
> range of technical experience and interests. I'm new to this mailing list,
> and to the IRTF in general - a colleague suggested that I subscribe to this
> working group's community to bring up an issue of concern to me with
> regards to the currently published draft of the specification of the Argon2
> key derivation function (formally draft-irtf-cfrg-argon2-10).
>
> In the course of both my work and general interest, I had occasion to
> investigate this algorithm and to attempt to build an implementation
> natively in the Swift language.. Unfortunately, I found the draft in its
> present form to be less helpful than I had hoped. After a considerable
> amount of time spent studying the C reference implementation and comparing
> it with the specification, I was able to derive a nearly complete and
> partially functional implementation of my own. It was a fascinating
> learning experience, but I also noted a significant number of typographical
> errors, incomplete descriptions, missing elements, and other problems in
> the spec itself.
>
> As I have an active interest in the cryptography space, as well as plenty
> of experience as both a technical writer and as a systems engineer, I took
> it upon myself to write up a somewhat exhaustive list of the various issues
> I encountered in the spec, ranging from technical analysis to grammatical
> concerns: I would be very pleased to contribute it (along with some
> accompanying suggestions of potential corrections) if it would be welcomed.
> I apologize if I'm in any way out of line; I couldn't find any kind of
> guidelines for how to approach this sort of problem, short of doing exactly
> this, so here I am.
>
> Thanks for reading through this, and I hope to get the chance to help out!
>
>
> -- Gwynne Raskind
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>
>
>
>
> --
> Colin Perkins
> https://csperkins.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>

-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry Khovratovich