Re: [Curdle] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07
Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> Thu, 03 January 2019 13:59 UTC
Return-Path: <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0A3212785F; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 05:59:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GeFs7FWs2BU3; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 05:59:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0D3E12EB11; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 05:59:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id B12DAD920209; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 13:58:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lhreml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.57) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 13:58:58 +0000
Received: from lhreml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.57) by lhreml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 13:58:58 +0000
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by lhreml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1591.10 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 13:58:57 +0000
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 21:58:51 +0800
From: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
To: Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>, Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448.all@ietf.org>, "curdle@ietf.org" <curdle@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07
Thread-Index: AQHUorH2JkRINekSS0KwazkwUu1cVaWbweQAgAAMaACAAcHX0A==
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 13:58:50 +0000
Message-ID: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B92902DEBEC@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <154642329120.32625.18387931087720472774@ietfa.amsl.com> <BL2PR15MB0947E4B0DCC8C36615F09B4DE38C0@BL2PR15MB0947.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <BN6PR14MB11069BB257E0A8B2627522C8838C0@BN6PR14MB1106.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> <BL2PR15MB0947FEA09887D6D43FCD2B2AE38C0@BL2PR15MB0947.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BL2PR15MB0947FEA09887D6D43FCD2B2AE38C0@BL2PR15MB0947.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.137.233]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/curdle/4NCr3XCRui56aZZ31LI2UCqY3Ic>
Subject: Re: [Curdle] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07
X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." <curdle.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/curdle>, <mailto:curdle-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/curdle/>
List-Post: <mailto:curdle@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:curdle-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/curdle>, <mailto:curdle-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 13:59:06 -0000
Hi, Daniel, The suggestion from Tim is a good improvement. However, it would be even better for a "standard track" document, if it gave a little bit more detailed guidance "where" and "how" a SSH implement should quota the key format that defined in this document. Regards, Sheng -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Migault [mailto:daniel.migault@ericsson.com] Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2019 2:57 AM To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com>; Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>; ops-dir@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448.all@ietf.org; curdle@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07 Thanks for the suggestion Tim. That works for me. Yours, Daniel -----Original Message----- From: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 1:12 PM To: Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>; Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>; ops-dir@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448.all@ietf.org; curdle@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07 Why not just reference RFC 2119 and say "Standard implementations of SSH SHOULD implement these signature algorithms." ? -Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Curdle <curdle-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Daniel Migault > Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 10:43 AM > To: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>; ops-dir@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448.all@ietf.org; curdle@ietf.org; > ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Curdle] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519- > ed448-07 > > Hi Sheng, > > Thanks for the comment and the suggestion. I agree that it may sound > strange to have a standard Track category without any reference to > RFC2119. In addition, while the document provides IANA registry updates, > the IANA registration does not require a Standard Track. So *technically* the > informational category could be fine. > > The motivation for a Standard Track document was to have these algorithms > as part of the SSH protocol. In other words, we expect that SSH will come > with these algorithms in the future. For that reason we requested the status > to be "Standard Track" to remain coherent with RFC425{1-4}. > > (RFC4250 and) RFC4253 provided the initial values for the Public Key registry. > While the protocol comes with some registry values, my understanding is > that updating the registry by adding a new value is not considered as an > update the RFC. For that reason we did not provide RFC4253 or RFC4250 in > the update status. While the update does not concern the RFC, it affects the > protocol and should - in my opinion be associated to the same status as the > protocol. > > As a side note, all RFCs that have updated the Public Key Algorithm Names > are Standard Track documents. On the other hand, they seem to reference > and use the RFC2119 terms. > > I believe that the Standard Track category is the most appropriated, > however, I am happy to be wrong and have misunderstood something. Feel > free to let me know your opinion on the category, as well as if there are any > clarification we should add in the text. I suggest that we add a sentence > around the lines: > """ These signature algorithms are expected to be integrated into the > standard implementations of SSH. """ > > Any feed back is welcome! > > Yours, > Daniel > -----Original Message----- > From: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 5:02 AM > To: ops-dir@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448.all@ietf.org; curdle@ietf.org; > ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07 > > Reviewer: Sheng Jiang > Review result: Has Issues > > Reviewer: Sheng Jiang > Review result: Has Issues > > Hi, OPS-DIR, Authors, > > I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. > These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational > aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may > be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG > chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. > > This standard track document describes the use of the Ed25519 and Ed448 > digital signature algorithm in the Secure Shell (SSH) protocol. This document > is one of the shortest documents I have ever seen. It is clear and well > written. > However, I have a fundamental issue regarding to its Intended status > "Standards Track", describe below. Therefore, it has issues for publication > although I think it is easy to fixed - changing the Intended status. > > Major issue: this document has Intended status for Standards Track. > However, neither this document fails to quota RFC 2119 or has any > normative words. > Consistently, I don't think the description in this document has any > mandatory requirements for any implementations of protocols. Actually, the > most important quota of this document, RFC8032, is Informational, which is > a Downref in this document. Therefore, I think it is more proper this > document intends for Informational status. > > Minor issue: no. > > Regards, > > Sheng > > > _______________________________________________ > Curdle mailing list > Curdle@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/curdle
- [Curdle] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-cu… Sheng Jiang
- Re: [Curdle] Opsdir last call review of draft-iet… Daniel Migault
- Re: [Curdle] Opsdir last call review of draft-iet… Tim Hollebeek
- Re: [Curdle] Opsdir last call review of draft-iet… Daniel Migault
- Re: [Curdle] Opsdir last call review of draft-iet… Salz, Rich
- Re: [Curdle] Opsdir last call review of draft-iet… Sheng Jiang
- Re: [Curdle] Opsdir last call review of draft-iet… Daniel Migault
- Re: [Curdle] Opsdir last call review of draft-iet… Daniel Migault
- Re: [Curdle] Opsdir last call review of draft-iet… Loganaden Velvindron
- Re: [Curdle] Opsdir last call review of draft-iet… Daniel Migault