Re: OPS-DIR Review of draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 30 May 2014 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFEC61A6EDE; Fri, 30 May 2014 08:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=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 MxL6zjKEbFp7; Fri, 30 May 2014 08:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A1381A0A23; Fri, 30 May 2014 08:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.140.99]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4UFfnxN022067 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 30 May 2014 08:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1401464528; bh=yYpseXFayr7z25KB+FpolLNsh+M9louNT/YfYJ/lwf0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Y34bsXUP8qTqNM81Hso47B5IcVFvAGkCF3k0DTWMOqU4aaSvGXXnJyMbcL7ydQRlF a52zioAejsQGj3ljJDfiG83lk7nR362jk0gIp4OqhnHKksXW26kOMNoprNuUhnn/Je 2Ujz7IKxfTXwz0mXIR4W46JmLrPAEzrVpBYy2eYg=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1401464528; i=@elandsys.com; bh=yYpseXFayr7z25KB+FpolLNsh+M9louNT/YfYJ/lwf0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Ry3VhKJgVA49nIZX4pxdqsu5PYUWw9DsQXAfTWrkxODQaRzRgLEZiyUxvnXGYzgsS 2mUwWeDb43LFH4AtT2VFmlvYVEIRhraj2OrJKZMRlR3YtmafjUEv1MnzfcV0Wr0qMt M15ARuyCe3oa25EnllwbCwRPN5w4HnRWqpDCPT7M=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140530044403.0bb93300@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 04:57:36 -0700
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, ops-dir@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: OPS-DIR Review of draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519
In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7F235A@AZ-FFEXMB04.globa l.avaya.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7F235A@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Isd3jB_f7qdvRUoAuFUMenEZ3_g
Cc: draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519.all@tools.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 15:42:38 -0000

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the review.

At 04:11 27-05-2014, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>This document  Informational RFC status. It extends the IANA "SSHFP 
>RR Types for public key algorithms" registry by adding an algorithm 
>number for Ed25519. There are no manageability or operational 
>implications related to this document. None of the checklist items 
>listed in RFC 5706 apply.
>
>A number of nits will be easily corrected by the RFC Editor:
>
>-          [RFC6594] is not referred in the document in the 
>bracketed format, resulting into a 'reference not used' error

I wanted to credit Ondrej Sury for his work, hence the reference.  I 
removed the reference  while keeping the credit as the reference 
would not be of interest to the reader.

>-          [FIPS180-4] is listed as a Normative Reference but not used

I already moved that to an Informative Reference in my working copy.

>-          Ed25519 and ED25519 are inconsistently used in the 
>document. I recommend settling on one way to write it.

That may be because of the "ED25519 Public Key with SHA-256 
Fingerprint" in Section 2.  I think that it is better to leave it as 
such to be consistent with the IANA Considerations Section.  The RFC 
Editor will likely flag this inconsistency.  Please feel free to push 
back on my response as it keeps things easier down the line.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy