[IPsec] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-ipsecme-safecurves-05: (with COMMENT)

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-safecurves-05: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-safecurves/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


- Wouldn't it be good to encourage minimising re-use of
public values for multiple key exchanges? As-is, the text
sort-of encourages use for "many key exchanges" in
section 4.

- Sorry if I'm forgetting how we handle this in IPsec,
but is an implementation of this RFC expected to support
both curves? I think it'd be ok to say that 25519 is a
MUST for folks doing, this but that 448 is optional.  I'm
also fine if we mean that implementing this means you
have to support both btw but you don't say (here) that
that's the case.