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

I will make a new version by next week.

Yoav

> On 19 Jan 2017, at 13:08, Paterson, Kenny <Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> Dear Stanislav,
> 
> Thanks very much for your quick action here - Yoav now has a total of 3 detailed reviews to work from - 2 from the panel and one from John Mattson on list. 
> 
> This is exactly how the review panel should work :-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kenny
> 
> 
> On 19 Jan 2017, at 11:52, Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev <smyshsv@gmail.com <mailto:smyshsv@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Good afternoon, dear colleagues!
>> 
>> I've sent the review to the CFRG mailing list.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Stanislav
>> 
>> 
>> 2017-01-19 13:41 GMT+03:00 Paterson, Kenny <Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk <mailto:Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk>>:
>> Russ,
>> 
>> Thanks for the speedy feedback.
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> 
>> Kenny
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> > On 18 Jan 2017, at 19:41, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I just sent the review.
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Jan 18, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Paterson, Kenny <Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk <mailto:Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Russ,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for offering. Stanislav also volunteered, but I think having two
>> >> independent reviews will do no harm at all here, since the intention is to
>> >> catch as many things as possible. So please go ahead in your suggested
>> >> timeframe.
>> >>
>> >> We didn't quite settle on a mechanism for handling these reviews yet, but
>> >> in this case I'd suggest e-mailing your comments to CFRG in the
>> >> appropriate thread once they are ready.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks again,
>> >>
>> >> Kenny
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On 17/01/2017 15:53, "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 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 <mailto: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 <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>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> <draft-nir-cfrg-rfc7539bis-00.raw.txt><rfc7539_long.txt>_________________
>> >>>> ______________________________
>> >>>> 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>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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>
>> >
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>> 