Re: [Crypto-panel] [Cfrg] Fwd: Rev RFC 7539?

Dear Stanislav,

On 17/01/2017 11:43, Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev wrote:
> Dear Kenny, Alexey and Yoav,
>
> I'll be happy to help with this one.
>
> If it's ok, I'd prefer to provide the review until the 3rd of 
> February, but I'm ready to make it faster if it is needed.

February 3rd sounds good to me.
> Best regards,
> Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev, Ph.D.,
> Head of Information Security Department,
> CryptoPro LLC
>
>
>
> 2017-01-17 14:16 GMT+03:00 Paterson, Kenny <Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk 
> <mailto:Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk>>:
>
>     Dear CFRG Review Panel members,
>
>     Please could we have a volunteer to review this document from Yoav
>     Nir?
>
>     The document is a proposed revision to RFC 7539 ("ChaCha20 and
>     Poly1305
>     for IETF Protocols") to address a number of errata that were found
>     in the
>     original RFC in a systematic way.
>
>     The purpose of the review would be to check that the corrections make
>     sense and to try to identify any further glitches that remain.
>     Additional
>     remarks would be welcome of course.
>
>     If you volunteer, it would be helpful to also indicate a
>     time-scale for
>     delivering your review.
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Kenny
>
>     On 12/01/2017 06:24, "Cfrg on behalf of Yoav Nir"
>     <cfrg-bounces@irtf.org <mailto:cfrg-bounces@irtf.org>
>     on behalf of ynir.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:ynir.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     >Reminder.
>     >
>     >
>     >Is there interest in pushing this forward?
>     >
>     >
>     >Yoav
>     >
>     >
>     >Begin forwarded message:
>     >
>     >From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:ynir.ietf@gmail.com>>
>     >
>     >Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Rev RFC 7539?
>     >
>     >Date: 16 November 2016 at 9:09:11 GMT+2
>     >
>     >To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com <mailto:sean@sn3rd.com>>
>     >
>     >Cc: IRTF CFRG <cfrg@irtf.org <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>>
>     >
>     >
>     >Cycles found.
>     >
>     >
>     >Attached please find two files:
>     >  1. rfc7539_long.txt is RFC 7539 with page breaks and page numbers
>     >removed.
>     > 2. draft-nir-cfrg-rfc7539bis-00.raw.txt
>     > is the unpaginated form of the new draft.
>     >
>     >
>     >Couldn’t do much about the boilerplate, but this makes it easy to
>     compare.
>     >
>     >
>     >Yoav
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >On 16 Nov 2016, at 10:06, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com
>     <mailto:sean@sn3rd.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     >+1 - if you got the cycles.
>     >
>     >spt
>     >
>     >
>     >On Nov 14, 2016, at 15:55, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com
>     <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     >This seems like a good plan.
>     >
>     >-Ekr
>     >
>     >
>     >On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com
>     <mailto:ynir.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     >Hi
>     >
>     >RFC 7539 (“ChaCha20 and Poly1305 for IETF Protocols”)[1] is now
>     >implemented in many places and referenced by 3 RFCs and 8
>     Internet Drafts
>     >([2])
>     >
>     >However, the quality of the document is not where we’d like it to be.
>     >There have been 7 errata filed against it. Most of it is editorial or
>     >insignificant, but still no errata is better than some errata.
>     >
>     >So what do the participants and chairs think about spinning up a
>     quick[4]
>     >rfc7539bis that has the same text, except that the errata will be
>     merged
>     >in?
>     >
>     >I think such a document should be fairly easy and quick.
>     >
>     >Yoav
>     >
>     >P.S: and yes, of course I’m volunteering to write it.
>     >
>     >[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7539
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7539>
>     >[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7539/referencedby/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7539/referencedby/>
>     >[3] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7539
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7539>
>     >[4] My spell check actually corrected “quick” to “quic”. The
>     contents of
>     >my mails are veering far away from regular English.
>     >
>     >
>     >_______________________________________________
>     >Cfrg mailing list
>     >Cfrg@irtf.org <mailto:Cfrg@irtf.org>
>     >https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>     <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>
>     >
>     >
>     >_______________________________________________
>     >Cfrg mailing list
>     >Cfrg@irtf.org <mailto:Cfrg@irtf.org>
>     >https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>     <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Crypto-panel mailing list
>     Crypto-panel@irtf.org <mailto:Crypto-panel@irtf.org>
>     https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/crypto-panel
>     <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/crypto-panel>
>
>