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

["Paterson, Kenny" <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>:
Russ,

Thanks for the speedy feedback.

Best wishes,

Kenny

Sent from my iPhone

> On 18 Jan 2017, at 19:41, Russ Housley <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> I just sent the review.
>
>
>> On Jan 18, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Paterson, Kenny <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I can do it late this week or early next week.
>>>
>>> Russ
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 17, 2017, at 6:16 AM, Paterson, Kenny <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>> 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" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Reminder.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there interest in pushing this forward?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yoav
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Yoav Nir <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Rev RFC 7539?
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: 16 November 2016 at 9:09:11 GMT+2
>>>>>
>>>>> To: Sean Turner <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: IRTF CFRG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 - if you got the cycles.
>>>>>
>>>>> spt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 14, 2016, at 15:55, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems like a good plan.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Ekr
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Yoav Nir <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Cfrg mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <draft-nir-cfrg-rfc7539bis-00.raw.txt><rfc7539_long.txt>_________________
>>>> ______________________________
>>>> Crypto-panel mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/crypto-panel
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Crypto-panel mailing list
>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/crypto-panel
>

_______________________________________________
Crypto-panel mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/crypto-panel