Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-07

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> Peter, thanks for your review. I entered a Yes ballot and pointed to your review.

Indeed, thanks for the review Peter!

I've incorporated all of your suggestions, with the exception of:


>> Page 4, Section 1.3: In general, it would be nice if there were references in
>> the paragraphs following the table that point to the research that led to the
>> statements of strength or lack of strength of the algorithms.  Then again, this
>> isn't an academic paper, so references aren't strictly required either.  While
>> I mostly (but not completely) agree with the notes on the individual
>> algorithms, the average reader is left to take the statements as gospel rather
>> than being able to make an informed decision on the current state of
>> cryptography.

We did not want to add these to the document, in an attempt to keep the
document short and on topic.

>> Page 5, 8th paragraph, 1st sentence: change "ED25519" to "Ed25519".  Change
>> "ED448" to "Ed448".  Only make these two changes if you are referring to these
>> algorithms by the names given to them by their authors as opposed to the
>> mnemonics used within DNSSEC.  (This statement also applies to the Ed25519
>> comment below.) Insert "the" before "Edwards".

We are using the mnemonics, so I left these as is.

>> Page 5, 8th paragraph, 4th sentence: change "ED25519" to "Ed25519".

Same,

>> Page 6, Section 3.3, 3rd paragraph, 1st fragment: change "for" to "regarding".
>> Append "are summarized in the table below." to the fragment.

I did not understand this change request?

Paul