[Curdle] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07

Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> Wed, 02 January 2019 10:01 UTC

Return-Path: <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: curdle@ietf.org
Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 544881294D0; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 02:01:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448.all@ietf.org, curdle@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.89.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154642329120.32625.18387931087720472774@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 02:01:31 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/curdle/h4oqtNgW9DxGNDhZCVqF1TryZMU>
Subject: [Curdle] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07
X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 02 Jan 2019 10:01:32 -0000

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