IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519-01

Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org> Sat, 31 May 2014 11:02 UTC

Return-Path: <rwfranks@gmail.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 8D6131A08F3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 May 2014 04:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 CPaxCC749_Go for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 May 2014 04:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yh0-x22e.google.com (mail-yh0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1A161A08E2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 May 2014 04:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yh0-f46.google.com with SMTP id 29so2478434yhl.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 May 2014 04:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=oZRzCchHJwPr1GggO6CrEEEpD6R+kniwuyUHbZ10WnY=; b=NomIiqooU/4L9kXxfs8CQMFatlYXqxyYi7fUqQb7wnraz5QRdbFHnix/PFZCUxmcwx 0HB/NE53d9eETeZ1NzVj+ELj6Af/w8ALH1Krmc1+tmyO3flxDuUxTA++Y+V+fLFyEn80 37jcXVyigQimXRxids60y7KxLc2W0iJ22N9YSo4IInnbPzfpnxnCGoY5apm/uWVfSsRP 12rSc4mUo+BRIgTjLUO57keLBm6OA/heedwQcFp5AhzIaGdKnKU5DVzGj1jSN9CBB6zN LP3/0WOgvGSHcS4n9MUwTsbXBW9pBI5pEdWV7a5Apzt40QyFtPIKxW7s87JfFMI2sy38 o8Dw==
X-Received: by 10.236.203.225 with SMTP id f61mr30508533yho.51.1401534165640; Sat, 31 May 2014 04:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rwfranks@gmail.com
Received: by 10.170.197.193 with HTTP; Sat, 31 May 2014 04:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140530224725.0c0948f0@elandnews.com>
References: <2ACBFFE4-BCEB-4F6D-A2D3-861BADF543DE@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140530040300.0bb93070@elandnews.com> <D1342262-144C-4939-B005-5E042CAF7394@cisco.com> <20140530141618.kgnw4u9b4gw80o4s@webmail.mit.edu> <6.2.5.6.2.20140530114625.0c0d1aa8@elandnews.com> <868A3427-6B46-4110-8D4B-45857D260C1D@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140530135131.0c7bdba0@elandnews.com> <53890957.3090407@tolerantnetworks.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140530154830.0c7a8d38@elandnews.com> <CAKW6Ri4AJxVjaQJMAOgkO-OfU8KgzauNZz2z+yg=L2RmoNdnbA@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140530224725.0c0948f0@elandnews.com>
From: Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 12:02:05 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: aw0yFXgvkw-iatGGVDIhnwcVkVc
Message-ID: <CAKW6Ri6c41OJogtKqMLYSSQFY03-uxHPT0qLrgv1b_Tw8jAZPA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519-01
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c1ee3a156c8c04fab01a47"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ZeR5JzW79vH4kEjiOS68QDMmU6I
Cc: IETF Discussion <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: Sat, 31 May 2014 11:02:51 -0000

On 31 May 2014 08:21, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:
[snip]


> This draft is related to cryptography.  It is difficult to find people
> with the necessary expertise to review drafts about cryptography.
>

Cryptography expertise not required.


> The reason for this work is get a code point assignment that requires IETF
> Consensus.


This attitude of yours also not required


>  The assignment does not negatively impact interoperability or otherwise
> extend IETF protocols in an inappropriate or damaging manner

 .
but it will if opinions vary about how to construct the fingerprint.

Compare and contrast your document with RFC4255 which defines the data to
be hashed by reference to RFC4253.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email