IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 31 May 2014 08:55 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 2FC341A079B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 May 2014 01:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
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 Xn7keQpTVQFs for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 May 2014 01:55:11 -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 452B81A031C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 May 2014 01:55:11 -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 s4V8srcq008392 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 31 May 2014 01:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1401526505; bh=U/fxa4S2FZZhVG8g/ppbJkj3KsdvQHJcUlvMzf202y8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=GpP9DsbCRUr+e6oBOzVkM6hptdZ+GSJYR3mCB04ZhuY6Drqxth906lG/w5Nr8fjQU HII+iIKsYX4YzIEW9fTW5TYKaD1+vDlpAAjTEEZdEg7cHQJzFgOuVTlLrEkbXV5Zko B9xfUBJIo7Ns0i7tkNhoMXJ3VbCJP1V9ZXaBBoIo=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1401526505; i=@elandsys.com; bh=U/fxa4S2FZZhVG8g/ppbJkj3KsdvQHJcUlvMzf202y8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=kEOBexGfYUyu47z5laQmGdUxbWmEjUhkvQ4jwZgnVNrMDrdSNWt0QHDsrSXRGMu9M bqCX6uk6L8UAqjnsBNe0Qy5RpceqkHG0LZWLERn2JWIyO3Od9bnnKqUF8C11mreH2E 8lU1uaTnOWdANMvfXxV7PgTnl2T2Sj7ZEtj0KNd8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140530224725.0c0948f0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 00:21:14 -0700
To: Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519-01
In-Reply-To: <CAKW6Ri4AJxVjaQJMAOgkO-OfU8KgzauNZz2z+yg=L2RmoNdnbA@mail.g mail.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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/lk1SO-ar8Wph3dCImRKk5kX77xw
Cc: 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 08:55:12 -0000

Hi Dick,

RFC 5781 mentions a protocol.  There isn't any reference to the 
protocol.  The RFC is normatively referenced in a Proposed 
Standard.  According to the document shepherd it "is a mandated to 
appear in some protocol [1] messages, and so the normative reference 
is appropriate".

This draft is related to cryptography.  It is difficult to find 
people with the necessary expertise to review drafts about 
cryptography.  It is even more difficult to get people to do the 
review for free.

The reason for this work is get a code point assignment that requires 
IETF Consensus.  The assignment does not negatively impact 
interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols in an 
inappropriate or damaging manner.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email