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

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> wrote:
> 
> I just sent the review.
> 
> 
>> On Jan 18, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Paterson, Kenny <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> 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>
>>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Crypto-panel mailing list
>> Crypto-panel@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/crypto-panel
> 