Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-ao-crypto ... -- editorials
Alfred Hönes <ah@TR-Sys.de> Wed, 24 February 2010 22:13 UTC
Return-Path: <A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670E828C202 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:13:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.387
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.136, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3aHKZqVAPK+r for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:13:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E1C3A85F2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:13:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA181739708; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:15:08 +0100
Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id XAA04613; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:15:07 +0100 (MEZ)
From: Alfred Hönes <ah@TR-Sys.de>
Message-Id: <201002242215.XAA04613@TR-Sys.de>
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-ao-crypto ... -- editorials
To: ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-ao-crypto@tools.IETF.ORG
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:15:07 +0100
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="hp-roman8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:17:25 -0800
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:13:39 -0000
It looks like draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-ao-crypto-02 is not yet ready for publication. Here is a collection of some editorials (found on a quick pass over the draft) that should be fixed: (1) Section 1, last para The text there does not reflect the order of presentation in the remainder of the document. In particular, "It then specifies ..." is confusing. Please consider rearranging that text to reflect the document content and not confuse the reader. OTOH, it might make sense to indeed first present the general requirements and then the specific requirements (i.e. swap Sections 2.2 and 2.3 and leave that paragraph unchaged). (2) Section 3.1.1 ff. (recurring) The input representation repeatedly uses unbalanced spacing: ( i || Label || Context || Output_Length) ^^ ^ Please use a balanced form, either ( i || Label || Context || Output_Length ) or (i || Label || Context || Output_Length) Also, "Context :" recurs in the draft, while other items are written with no white space before the colon. (3) Sections 3.1.1.3 (see below, as well!) and 7: I seriously doubt that the very short names given to IANA and as a SHOULD for UIs are useful. In particular not using "HMAC", only the shorthand "SHA1", will likely raise again these concerns against SHA-1 that do not properly distinguish between the cyptographical strenght/weekness of plain SHA-1 and the HMAC construct employing SHA-1. The name "AES128" also seems to be confusing; future algorithms for TCP-AO might also be based on AES-128 -- e.g. AES in GMAC mode. Thus, a bit more precision would certainly help to avoid confusion. (4) Sections 4 and 5 Usually, such sections are supplied as appendices, so that the numbered sections do no need renumbering upon cleanup. OTOH, it's not clear why Section 5 (and the final editorial remark in section 2.3) are still present at all in a document forwarded to the IESG and subject to IETF LC. (5) idnits results I once assumed that documents forwarded to the IESG had to pass the idnits checks beforehand -- besides actual "false alarms". Please clean up the references and address all the other general items and details that idnits reports (too much to reproduce here). (6) Further nits: * clean up non-paired spurious square brackets * in 3.1.1: s/mutiple/multiple/ * please fix hyphenation (if used as an attribute, e.g. "128-bit key", 16-byte jey" etc.) * Section 3.1.1.3 should betted be numbered 3.1.2; it does not introduce a 3rd "Concrete KDF". * Section 3.2, last line: there's no "TCP-AO header"; please use "TCP header" (or maybe "TCP-AO option"). * Section 3.2.1: s/that has function/that hash function/ . ^ ^^ * Section 6, 2nd para: "cryptographic-based systems" ?? -- I suggest to use "cryptography-based systems" or better "systems based on cryptography". * Section 6, last para: There are no algorithms with a requirement level of or "SHOULD implement" These three words should be deleted. Kind regards, Alfred Hönes. -- +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: ah@TR-Sys.de | +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
- Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-ao-crypto ... … Alfred Hönes
- Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-ao-crypto ... … Gregory Lebovitz