Re: [CFRG] IRTF Chair review of draft-irtf-cfrg-vrf-12

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

Dear Leo,

Thank you for the fast response and update. This new version addresses 
my comments. I’ll move the draft on to IRSG review.

Colin




On 15 Jun 2022, at 21:21, Leonid Reyzin wrote:

> Dear Colin,
>
> Thank you for your feedback. We addressed all your comments. 
> Specifically,
> for Section 5.4.5, we explained that this algorithm MAY be used, and 
> added
> a considerable amount of rationale for its design, including the 
> rationale
> for the choice of bad_y2. For deciding which algorithm to use, we 
> added a
> paragraph to Section 1 that points to security differences among the
> algorithms as addressed in Sections 3 and 7.
>
> As far as the test vectors, the entire section is generated directly 
> by the
> reference implementation, which directly outputs xml2rfc version 3. 
> The
> reference implementation itself has been extensively debugged and 
> tested
> against other implementations of relevant components.
>
> We uploaded the new version (-13) to
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-vrf/
>
> Finally, regarding IPR disclosures, we are not aware of any IPR 
> claims.
>
> Thanks for your work,
>
>  Leo
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 9:28 AM Colin Perkins <[e-mail]> 
> wrote:
>
>> The CFRG chairs have requested that draft-irtf-cfrg-vrf-12 be 
>> published as
>> an RFC on the IRTF stream. The IRTF publication process is described 
>> in RFC
>> 5743, and comprises a review by the IRSG to ensure technical and 
>> editorial
>> quality, followed by a check by the IESG to ensure the work does not
>> conflict with IETF standards activities.
>>
>> As IRTF Chair, I perform an initial review of all drafts submitted 
>> for
>> publication on the IRTF stream before sending them for detailed 
>> review by
>> the IRSG. This note provides my review comments, for discussion.
>>
>> Authors, please can you also respond to this message to confirm that 
>> all
>> necessary IPR disclosures, as described on 
>> https://irtf.org/policies/ipr,
>> have been made?
>>
>> Result: Almost Ready
>>
>> RFC 5743 compliance: The draft follows the guidelines in RFC 5743
>>
>> Comments:
>>
>> Thank you for preparing this draft. On the whole, I found it clearly
>> written and easy to follow. I have some minor questions for 
>> clarification,
>> and a couple of nits to address:
>>
>>    -
>>
>>    Nit: I suggest to remove the §1.1 sub-heading, and to move the
>>    sentence “This document represents the consensus of the Crypto 
>> Forum
>>    Research Group (CFRG)” to follow the two paragraphs that 
>> currently comprise
>>    Section 1.1.
>>    -
>>
>>    Nit: RFC 8174 updates RFC 2119 and suggests a slightly different
>>    phrasing for the key words section. Suggest updating to use that 
>> reference
>>    instead of RFC 2119.
>>    -
>>
>>    Section 5.4.5 defines bad_y2 =
>>    2707385501144840649318225287225658788936804267575313519463743609750303402022.
>>    It’s not clear why this particular value was chosen. The 
>> discussion at the
>>    end of the section hints at an answer, but I wonder if it should 
>> be more
>>    specific?
>>    -
>>
>>    Section 5.4.5 says “For example, the following algorithm may be
>>    used…”. This seems imprecise. How important is the choice of 
>> algorithm?
>>    -
>>
>>    As a general point, I found that the draft clearly describes the
>>    algorithms to be used, but was less clear in describing when to 
>> use each of
>>    them, and what are the trade-offs between the different choices. 
>> It may be
>>    worth expanding the Introduction a little to outline applicability 
>> of the
>>    different options.
>>    -
>>
>>    The appendix contains extensive test vectors. Has there been some 
>> test
>>    performed to compare these with known-correct outputs, to make 
>> sure no
>>    typos have been introduced when preparing the draft?
>>
>> Colin Perkins
>> IRTF Chair
>>