[Lwip] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-21: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 13 July 2021 12:18 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: lwip@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCE253A0101; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 05:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations@ietf.org, lwig-chairs@ietf.org, lwip@ietf.org, Mohit Sethi <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com>, mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.34.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-ID: <162617870933.26012.17355902626543727308@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 05:18:29 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lwip/4C_UTkZRD7Gh8c9o1WB-z0QHeWI>
Subject: [Lwip] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-21: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lwip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Lightweight IP stack. Official mailing list for IETF LWIG Working Group." <lwip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lwip/>
List-Post: <mailto:lwip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 12:18:30 -0000
Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-21: Discuss 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Even with the switch to Informational, I don't see how this document is in scope for LWIG. The LWIG charter constrains the group to work on network and transport layer protocols, and even contains a pretty specific list of protocols that are in scope. An alternative representation for ECs - even if it has benefits for embedded devices - is not what LWIG is chartered to produce. Has the group negotiated going beyond their charter in this way with the responsible AD? Is that documented somewhere? If not, I sincerely hope that LWIG pays more attention to its charter going forward, to avoid running into late process issues that cause upset and require special-case handling. That said, we need to find a way to get this document published without much further delay. This seems to be technically sound work with some clear benefits. Publishing via the CFRG would be an option, but would cause some delay. I wonder if AD-sponsoring it would avoid such delays. I don't want to set a precedent that it's OK for WGs to violate their charter, and hence I wouldn't want us to simply publish this via LWIG. I also want to make it clear that this issue is not something that is due to the authors, or something tat they can resolve. The WG chairs and the IESG need to discuss how we got into this situation and how we can avoid similar issues in the future. The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet; I am holding a DISCUSS for IANA until it has. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Document has Informational status, but uses RFC2119 keywords. Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more guidance: * Term "Master"; alternatives might be "active", "central", "initiator", "leader", "main", "orchestrator", "parent", "primary", "server". * Term "his"; alternatives might be "they", "them", "their". * Term "traditional"; alternatives might be "classic", "classical", "common", "conventional", "customary", "fixed", "habitual", "historic", "long-established", "popular", "prescribed", "regular", "rooted", "time-honored", "universal", "widely used", "widespread". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. "Q.3.1. ", paragraph 28, nit: - (r, s) if valid only if the ECDSA signature (r,-s) is, one can - ^ + (r, s) is valid only if the ECDSA signature (r,-s) is, one can + ^ "Q.3.2. ", paragraph 28, nit: - (r, s) if valid only if the ECDSA signature (r,-s) is, one can - ^ + (r, s) is valid only if the ECDSA signature (r,-s) is, one can + ^ "Q.3.3. ", paragraph 28, nit: - (r, s) if valid only if the ECDSA signature (r,-s) is, one can - ^ + (r, s) is valid only if the ECDSA signature (r,-s) is, one can + ^ "I ", paragraph 1, nit: > is due to the authors, or something tat they can resolve. The WG chairs and > ^^^ In British English, the noun "tat" means tasteless or shoddy items. Did you mean "that"? Section 5.1. , paragraph 2, nit: > e if only the Curve25519 curve would have been generated so as to be isomorph > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Did you mean "had been"? Section 10.2. , paragraph 6, nit: > example, if there is ambiguity as to whether to represent the binary digit 0 > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Consider shortening this phrase to just "whether", or rephrase the sentence to avoid "as to". "B.1. ", paragraph 2, nit: > n z of degree zero. If m>1 (i.e., if if q is a strict prime power), then GF(q > ^^ Did you mean "is"? "F.1. ", paragraph 4, nit: > hose with the desired property with lowest possible degree. Appendix G. Furt > ^^^^^^ A determiner may be missing. "K.3.1. ", paragraph 10, nit: > en the two constructions above is that that the first construction uses the m > ^^^^^^^^^ Possible typo: you repeated a word. "O.4. ", paragraph 9, nit: > ticular cryptographic criteria). Despite of its wide-spread use, some details > ^^^^^^^^^^ Did you mean "Despite" (or, alternatively, "in spite of")? Uncited references: [draft-FIPS-186-5], [SP-800-56c], [tEd], [ECC], [draft-NIST-800-186], [SWUmap]
- [Lwip] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-lwig-c… Lars Eggert via Datatracker