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

I can do it late this week or early next week.

Russ

On Jan 17, 2017, at 6:16 AM, Paterson, Kenny <Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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
> on behalf of ynir.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Reminder.
>> 
>> 
>> Is there interest in pushing this forward?
>> 
>> 
>> Yoav
>> 
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: Yoav Nir <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>
>> 
>> Cc: IRTF CFRG <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> wrote:
>> 
>> +1 - if you got the cycles.
>> 
>> spt
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 14, 2016, at 15:55, Eric Rescorla <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> 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
>> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7539/referencedby/
>> [3] 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
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cfrg mailing list
>> Cfrg@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> <draft-nir-cfrg-rfc7539bis-00.raw.txt><rfc7539_long.txt>_______________________________________________
> Crypto-panel mailing list
> Crypto-panel@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/crypto-panel