IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] RFC 6090 correctness

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sun, 16 March 2014 00:45 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E281A02AE for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 17:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=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 dqhgy7NAHUJl for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 17:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23F911A02AA for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 17:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-175.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.175]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s2G0ivxv047067 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 17:44:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-175.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.175] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0ck+8Rhxc1_4bp9za7n+Pe5Oan755CoxBs1ZnPFuruG6OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 17:44:54 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <28EB012B-C9FE-4CF4-A039-E9DA5ECCD787@vpnc.org>
References: <CACsn0ck+8Rhxc1_4bp9za7n+Pe5Oan755CoxBs1ZnPFuruG6OQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/vIdDxy9uA8JlxBJx1mjc1cRBXjs
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] RFC 6090 correctness
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 00:45:07 -0000

Please note that RFC 6090 already has a bunch of errata; see <http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6090>. Maybe Watson and Tanja can coordinate on a concise statement of the current error and turn in a new errata. It would also be grand if people on the list went through the RFC with a finer-tooth comb than they did before it was published and report anything else.

There are enough errata that it feels like the RFC should be updated to deal with them all.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email