Re: [Curdle] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-curdle-cms-eddsa-signatures-06

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 24 July 2017 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 05FFD131F20 for <curdle@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 EP3vmf-eZSv7 for <curdle@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2747A129AF9 for <curdle@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7725030056B for <curdle@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 16:58:00 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id YqYCNdfELxDn for <curdle@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 16:57:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.home (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A719F300288; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 16:57:58 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <150084248880.31306.450946335865671294@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 16:57:58 -0400
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, curdle <curdle@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <88C7C6F9-FBD3-402A-B174-02C44D9D0092@vigilsec.com>
References: <150084248880.31306.450946335865671294@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/curdle/xZCeAyAEi4LgkJ8btROBkbsjxZQ>
Subject: Re: [Curdle] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-curdle-cms-eddsa-signatures-06
X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 20:58:03 -0000

Jouni:

Thanks for the review.

> Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
> Review result: Ready
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-curdle-cms-eddsa-signatures-??
> Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
> Review Date: 2017-07-23
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-07-25
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: Ready to ship. Good that Proto Write-up took care of explaining
> downrefs.
> 
> Major issues: None.
> 
> Minor issues: None.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:  I just have one question whether the use of RFC2119
> language in Section 5 Security Considerations is intentional? I mean here that
> sometimes e.g. "must" is in lower case and sometimes other keywords are in
> upper case e.g. "SHOULD NOT".

Looking through the paragraphs in Section 5...

Paragraph 1: The use of "must" and "may" are intentional.  These are needed for security, but they do not impact interoperability.

Paragraph 2: The use of "may" is intentional.  It is a statement about what an attacker may do; it has no impact on interoperability.

Paragraph 4: It uses "SHOULD NOT"

Paragraph 5: In my edit buffer, I have changed "should" to "SHOULD".

Russ