Re: [IPsec] NUDGE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 16 April 2013 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D455721F974D for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6sNFrZBoY1-a for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F6321F977B for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.60] (c-98-210-236-174.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.210.236.174]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3GGBuMh064488 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:12:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
In-Reply-To: <08d180a4c7de8488ae2f58370d6b5c8b.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:11:58 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <78485366-9595-4268-9E3F-93C6FC2EED88@vpnc.org>
References: <9F821C79-A855-4060-A356-ED8E5C50048B@vpnc.org> <08d180a4c7de8488ae2f58370d6b5c8b.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
To: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Subject: Re: [IPsec] NUDGE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:12:33 -0000

On Apr 9, 2013, at 1:13 PM, Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org> wrote:

>  I think it looks fine and I have a nit that the authors can ignore
> if they like.
> 
>  I don't like the fact that RFC 5903 does not list a specific value for
> "a" in the parameter set definition and instead just says -3 in the
> equation for the curve. This draft does the same sort of thing in
> Section 2.3 by saying, "for groups 19, 20, 21,  a=-3, and all other
> values of a, b and p for the group are listed in the RFC." Which to
> me sounds like it's the same value: minus three.
> 
>  Note that RFC 5114 also defines these groups but lists the proper
> (to me) value for "a". It's probably not right to just refer to RFC 5114,
> especially since RFC 5903 is listed in the repository for those curves,
> so my nit would be to change it to "for groups 19, 20, and 21,
> a = -3 mod p, and for all other values...." just to let the reader who
> might not be so familiar with the topic know that "a" is not the same
> for each curve.

This sounds like a good clarification. Authors: please revise the draft with this (and whatever text you can to clear up Michael Richardson's earlier confusion).

--Paul Hoffman