IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] [kitten] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-kitten-krb-spake-preauth-07

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 29 May 2020 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC3CF3A0908 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 XJkMjWWC7acX for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:10:23 -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 5D2873A090D for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC70300B2F for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 10:10:20 -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 x086Hw3HKm0t for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 10:10:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-72-66-113-56.washdc.fios.verizon.net [72.66.113.56]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4715300A31; Fri, 29 May 2020 10:10:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <7B24DD80-0A21-41F1-8E6A-CDE6279F0350@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_45A482BB-902F-4A9A-A472-312F99CAA41D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 10:10:19 -0400
In-Reply-To: <jlgftbjelvc.fsf@redhat.com>
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, kitten@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-kitten-krb-spake-preauth.all@ietf.org
To: Robbie Harwood <rharwood@redhat.com>
References: <158956185809.27642.15651397749101904532@ietfa.amsl.com> <jlgftbjelvc.fsf@redhat.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/pBE0MI8KFQozMrswTm_F1lXTwj4>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] [kitten] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-kitten-krb-spake-preauth-07
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 14:10:25 -0000


> On May 28, 2020, at 6:27 PM, Robbie Harwood <rharwood@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> Russ Housley via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> writes:
> 
>> Reviewer: Russ Housley
>> Review result: Almost 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.
> 
> Hi Russ, thanks for the review.  Changes should be present in -08 unless
> discussed further below.
> 
>> Major Concerns:
>> 
>> Does this align with draft-irtf-cfrg-spake2?
> 
> It's derived from it, though they no longer totally align.
> 
>> Are you aware of https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4018/?
> 
> I have seen it, but as Watson Ladd put it in
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/senXefqczpUZo26B35ekz8d3iLo/
> 
>    I’m not a patent lawyer, and cannot speculate on any IPR conflicts
>    that may or may not exist.

If these documents do not align, then another 3rd party disclosure should be made against this document, so the IPR holder can weigh in.

>> Minor Concerns:
>> 
>> Abstract: Please explain "FAST", perhaps just a pointer to RFC 6113.
> 
> We believe this is covered by the "Document conventions" section.

In my opinion, something needs to be in the Abstract.  Otherwise, the Abstract is not stand alone.

Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email