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

"Roni Even" <> Thu, 07 April 2016 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B19612D906; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:51:05 -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 PydWDC9YB9Gd; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECDAE12D8FF; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k135so26184901qke.0; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 05:50:53 -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=E2Xb0qrOv9krDOmlVdCdsQOzBhpr0HngCaxrqgCNI10=; b=wn70vHEjpr+CurNEgk8V2DPwyvn0qeNL9/5nJTHjExjFIX78t/VgXFzRVQW29d7myJ NkikWk9KjOxQlhFQZqb46iA5kroDEuWE7KQ8E2gf3dVza/ZA0WtESdXPCf9n3dDn/Tw5 cwvXuH4j3xBsz7Icc9D6XJA/ANINRKjGADDd2Bx3wxJmras6AUHFKKjM+MyCz+AWloYR 4zVBPURjfTav04/5txIushnDdttoenCssJXZk/g14Lkk3opii7wgDWxa9L/O+R45FW+/ ipmBvvvGsAG/aL5kt0X0NQqvyBxT8oTOgU4gjgSNyD2C1mB4GhAhV6/9obXb4/Ze8PgZ Rz/w==
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=E2Xb0qrOv9krDOmlVdCdsQOzBhpr0HngCaxrqgCNI10=; b=Fb+s5c5n5tbeufI7H0c9+WZAmWIOH1l9ZSSWh8mXKT1Z/QJdk2pVqAHOSX5oCzG34g 2J8X86foNzSf4HhEOEisdt4xD6VqcG7GnkQHwDw9dW6AKPWBKKz06vLvKsO4UnrTJbjn w0gK4SLTCLJ07Sjrk3b6I+Lw3kotcW2qSWyaDNYAtRJqkZkg0x0vWcWhi5YY9Oj8kw8c RN1nZO+wgGrNDncJ1vPy6vnU4ywVCJau4FkI2w4UxqQbcvJNuaAZVDtLf5vjDeRuuxgb 2hflD2YvmHNYYlibjVHKKig2ojJPBCZ+u9LS9jhG1Qjvgf/Xm/3I1x6fkDk1FiNJpg7F X7mQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJs1t1qOX1i20M5GupUB/cFnu6UTqgguhXrkKYfyZtaRC7I/WB0DhJNxptNDMhHwA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id u22mr3290334qki.63.1460033452357; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 05:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniPC ([2001:67c:370:160:e03e:d3ff:6be5:1fb6]) by with ESMTPSA id t36sm3305618qgt.42.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Apr 2016 05:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roni Even" <>
To: <>
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04 - resend
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:50:47 +0300
Message-ID: <017f01d190cc$1c912f20$55b38d60$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0180_01D190E5.41E17460"
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 12:51:05 -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: