IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Curdle] new AD review comments on draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-08

Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com> Wed, 05 June 2019 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <daniel.migault@ericsson.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 91A32120046; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 06:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com
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 irDHL9i-95Jb; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 06:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM04-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr680086.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.68.86]) (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 9F0C9120048; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 06:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=eLjT2lWuvTVMsJuKHEbyYIlmMvuc2vrbXxahqudCatY=; b=GkpkNaAj0VEyxvLhb4VXHNm/tGSInGFtrptqcu5C1ErnTk1udfJXmxJEqj9aTIRYj9h0DVZ/9L33eaaV9KOeCfUzLliFBk4nRY9S9Oz5Av0fsCbuiYjSo62P5oLtShOX5e5CtOSQwAThHYUBPcJzbAh4bQ0i4Z3oii0Xlhblx4g=
Received: from DM6PR15MB3531.namprd15.prod.outlook.com (10.141.164.29) by DM6PR15MB3195.namprd15.prod.outlook.com (20.179.52.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1965.12; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 13:52:30 +0000
Received: from DM6PR15MB3531.namprd15.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::15f0:ad13:112d:529d]) by DM6PR15MB3531.namprd15.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::15f0:ad13:112d:529d%7]) with mapi id 15.20.1965.011; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 13:52:30 +0000
From: Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, "draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448.all@ietf.org>
CC: "curdle@ietf.org" <curdle@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: new AD review comments on draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-08
Thread-Index: AQHVGvyouXNq2Av80UGqN7hXUNGiHaaNFNsA
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 13:52:30 +0000
Message-ID: <DM6PR15MB3531AACEA6B575BBACAFD413E3160@DM6PR15MB3531.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20190604174029.GC8678@prolepsis.kaduk.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190604174029.GC8678@prolepsis.kaduk.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=daniel.migault@ericsson.com;
x-originating-ip: [192.75.88.130]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a2f6a731-ac86-4f04-f002-08d6e9bd0d80
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:DM6PR15MB3195;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR15MB3195:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR15MB319575D35C43CEDBCC0325E9E3160@DM6PR15MB3195.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 00594E8DBA
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(366004)(39860400002)(136003)(396003)(346002)(376002)(13464003)(199004)(189003)(53754006)(68736007)(316002)(99286004)(66574012)(81156014)(478600001)(52536014)(53936002)(14444005)(256004)(5660300002)(305945005)(25786009)(7696005)(8936002)(74316002)(7736002)(76176011)(6246003)(86362001)(8676002)(44832011)(71190400001)(55016002)(3846002)(229853002)(110136005)(76116006)(476003)(6506007)(9686003)(2501003)(71200400001)(186003)(486006)(53546011)(73956011)(6436002)(6306002)(966005)(66476007)(102836004)(4326008)(66946007)(14454004)(81166006)(6116002)(2171002)(66446008)(66066001)(64756008)(33656002)(446003)(11346002)(66556008)(26005)(2906002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM6PR15MB3195; H:DM6PR15MB3531.namprd15.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ericsson.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 0jrlDf+wSOaIY+nV5Vyq6auiVLxASwsJI9sItKerxZ8C5Tn+2jo+v+lws7m1N7Jp65mKSzSbr5+svqO1OcF6VEpLh4irj9w84UCtyZ28NKonotInvW3t7+dTjSRsayG4xYANyenBmQOn9vdERqwAzF3QYfflVUm0BTsJWX6NxbXrxAv+1DtFfHtu5z8Fyq5O5keywAqDWwReC3uPg7FbAJf6nHUh72TCFKRqjbo5SLU1Vhr6qntOTZ41bK3AnugDYAncPeSggHX9TM+66mGqmrnDRPMUwXgK1wOs2vaDEJNuvCceLDRPgP2292krUeLVqBI9AzqFRyN9eLizupsecwQSM0jQrbPEK9icALvCfNm62NROsl/R6sbFVCpVcvfBCRurjge0evlguhFp/ZooUGCFoxiJ2D9rV2J2qoy9MIg=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a2f6a731-ac86-4f04-f002-08d6e9bd0d80
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Jun 2019 13:52:30.3129 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: daniel.migault@ericsson.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR15MB3195
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/curdle/_oqbQ2IWhmZVHIczixF1Oq8ADJg>
Subject: Re: [Curdle] new AD review comments on draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-08
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: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 13:52:37 -0000

Thanks Ben for the follow-up, please see my responses inline for (2) and (4). I believe a version 08 is needed to address (1) and (2). 
Yours, 
Daniel

-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 1:41 PM
To: draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448.all@ietf.org
Cc: curdle@ietf.org
Subject: new AD review comments on draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-08

Hi all,

I'm just about ready to send this to the IESG, but there seems to be a few things to fix, first:

(1) In Section 8 we say "The generation of SSHFP resource records for "ssh-ed448" keys is described as follows." but then give only an example and not a description of what to do.  We need to say more about this procedure

(2) I'm not sure if the chain on the opsdir review got fully resolved; see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/curdle/DZc2Sr19zJ71nnC3pSIF0uPhaCk
<mglt>
The current version has not accordingly been updated. 
</mglt>

(3) The shepherd writeup says that Ben did not confirm IPR (non)disclosure per BCPs 78 and 79 -- Ben, can you please do so now?

(4) Daniel, can you please update the shepherd writeup to reflect the discussions with the directorate reviewers about document status?  I'm sure that some IESG members will ask "why not Informational?" if we don't forestall them.

<mglt>
I have update the shepherd as follows:

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

The requested status is Standard Track. This is necessary for 
inter-operability  and as such the Standard Track seems the 
most appropriated status.  

The OPS Directorate wondered why version 07 was a Standard Track 
document and not an informational document as no normative 2119 words. 

The reason for being a standard track is that we expect the implementation 
that implement SSH to follow these recommendations. The consensus was 
to explicitly mention it in the document around the lines:

"Standard implementations of SSH SHOULD implement these signature algorithms."
</mglt>
Thanks,

Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email