[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-igoe-secsh-aes-gcm-00

Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net> Wed, 26 November 2008 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <gen-art-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-gen-art-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2D8C3A6BCF; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 06:51:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128183A6B59; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 06:51:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yJM6vpowcauD; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 06:51:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from estacado.net (estacado-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:266::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21C103A696E; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 06:51:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (takahe.estacado.net [72.1.129.96]) (authenticated bits=0) by estacado.net (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mAQEp08G035307 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:51:01 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@estacado.net)
Message-Id: <9DFABF2C-DD02-40DC-A3B4-4B87B0372205@estacado.net>
From: Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net>
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, kmigoe@nsa.gov, jasolin@orion.ncsc.mil
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:51:00 -0600
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
Cc: tim.polk@nist.gov, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-igoe-secsh-aes-gcm-00
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.


Document: draft-igoe-secsh-aes-gcm-00
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date:  2008-11-26
IETF LC End Date: 2008-12-03
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.

Comments:

(All of these are minor. I think that addressing them could improve  
the draft, but none are important enough to block publication)

--Don't forget the new boilerplate, depending on the timing of  
publication

--Section 3 (Applicability Statement)

This is not really an applicability statement, as it does not  
constrain the scope of applicability for this draft in any way that I  
can see. I suggest moving the text in its entirety either to the  
introduction, or before the related normative paragraph in section 7.

--Section 8 (Security Considerations)

I assume that, in the authors' opinions, no new considerations are  
implied by the use of either of these algorithms, or by the  
recommendation to use the same algorithm for confidentiality and data  
integrity? If so, it would be helpful to state that explicitly.



Thanks!

Ben.










_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art