Re: [Curdle] Review of draft-kaduk-kitten-des-des-des-die-die-die-01

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg,

Thanks for the review.  Could you clarify which version you
reviewed?
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kaduk-kitten-des-des-des-die-die-die-01
or
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-00
?)

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:54:03AM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
> I have reviewed this draft and have no blocking objections.  Some
> non-blocking, editorial notes:
> 
> Interoperability concerns are listed last for RC4, but second out of
> three subsections for DES3.
> 
> Section 5.2, "Modern encryption types such as [...] use" should have a
> comma before "such as" and before "use".
> 
> Section 5.2, "It is also best practice when [...], to" should have a
> comma before "when".  Also, "it is also best practice" doesn't seem
> right.
> 
> Section 5.3, "Because [...], this means that these application servers
> also possess" should omit "this means that".  I would also remove the
> parenthetical for that sentence.
> 
> Section 5.4, "cross-realm situations" should perhaps be "cross-realm
> deployments".
> 
> Section 6, in "ample justification for deprecating their use", "their"
> appears to refer back to "The flaws", which doesn't seem quite right.
> 
> Section 6, "blocksize" should be "block size".
> 
> Section 6.1, "[nfold] is known not to provide effective mixing of the
> input bits" is not backed up by a reference.  (I don't know of a
> reference.)

The other items seem clearly editorial.
For this one, do you think I should look harder for a reference, or
drop down to "is believed not to provide"?

Thanks again,

Ben