Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04 - resend

"Roni Even" <> Thu, 07 April 2016 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1626012D8BC; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LKQtVXBnG_WP; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51ADB12D8BB; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f52so61492754qga.3; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 05:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:thread-index :content-language; bh=wRV/feiytcaxDGuf4eD4yv3JRCKJUQGIdp1Yodj6Kfw=; b=JFH9Cd8DJNCwUU3e2XeerXpcennvZuajls+Ok9d4wCx0lcEMKeOL7LiwGDlgdoPjGR tXwaYSpjeDdjQzkriZFmObk0iUuP6BsOsHFhTAjwH0jBEZ36UtD8b/bDCVz0q69ORdIk FoKlmlsAQNasipgt0yyNKoHyfOSuGT3Ma54GSStvh0lV4n5qhpnZThiy1HXVWILTdoOY KbqFdlfljAvop2y5UYEZbiIHK40AGP7x7r2rNyuimd1aqjtT/gWQYIaQenGJyuLRQOUW ESQjn54cPRwt9gY03PAS1aEmssC0F15sJgtxJ3V9FLSgIr75kW/4waPIqUf0mw2ppvOV Db2Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :thread-index:content-language; bh=wRV/feiytcaxDGuf4eD4yv3JRCKJUQGIdp1Yodj6Kfw=; b=BpiVZMYII6uhaDsUtlFVS7BkiQ+nhEfi6yVy6lfePJXvcOLCLPo9A4aMirmbaHwwdp dmRjNXepVlIKuJkfDrP0HOtmszal/H56+5zEeKDyw7gmJAFZm6iQvHWG5UEP6XDaVcu6 PWkEkccyO3zkHE5X9Je8hQxBrvpkLro5UlSFVhAVYdvmckE7nJRJpySx0fS/aob37cHK UfP3KrysGEOFMJJEwJ1xaT160rgcYN8FeRzRlDu1v0reAnubBKuF9DEKZjQEUtLRfd9h xd0QMRpR8ghR7eNT8wyNIGp0QEdqmT/0d7zM7Z5lAtYobBJKKVhIT9IebDxa6osiSnhy xt5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLpsWbc0LEBJp+Z7vjose64Rck9JhIxNCDnDh0cWa/5MN1MWux71IUQdFxAB/ebMg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id z107mr3289104qgd.45.1460032835316; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 05:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniPC ([2001:67c:370:160:e03e:d3ff:6be5:1fb6]) by with ESMTPSA id 131sm1917810qhk.15.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Apr 2016 05:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roni Even" <>
To: <>
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04 - resend
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:40:30 +0300
Message-ID: <017a01d190ca$ace223b0$06a66b10$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_017B_01D190E3.D2315780"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdGQygxSCEkbP4XEQq2U/CrA+ZxzCg==
Content-Language: he
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 12:41:05 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

Document:  draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2016-3-28

IETF LC End Date: 2016-4-9

IESG Telechat date: 


Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track




Major issues:

I am wondering why this is a standard track document and not informational
since the registration requirements are specification required.  (RFC5246)


I am also wondering why this document updates RFC5246 and RFC6347.  Reading
the document it looked to me that the registration document is used also to
endorse this cypher suite by the IETF and if this is the case my view is
that there should be two documents, one Informational for registration and
the will be standard track and update RFC5246 and RFC6347

For Example the following text from section 1 "Therefore, a new stream
cipher to replace RC4 and address all the  previous issues is needed. "
provides what may look as a normative recommendation.



Minor issues:


Nits/editorial comments: