Re: [Lwip] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-08

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

> On Nov 26, 2019, at 2:54 PM, Rene Struik <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Russ:
> 
> Thanks for your review (and speedy turn-around).
> 
> Please find below feedback on how I intend to address all but your last remarks (I will reflect on your suggestion as to introductory text with the appendices when looking over Daniel Migault's earlier "guidance of the reader" remarks).
> 
> Best regards, Rene
> 
> On 11/26/2019 12:58 PM, Russ Housley via Datatracker wrote:
>> Reviewer: Russ Housley
>> Review result: Has Issues
>> 
>> I reviewed this document as part of the Security Directorate's ongoing
>> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
>> comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Security Area
>> Directors.  Document authors, document editors, and WG chairs should
>> treat these comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments.
>> 
>> Document: draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-08
>> Reviewer: Russ Housley
>> Review Date: 2019-11-26
>> IETF LC End Date: unknown
>> IESG Telechat date: unknown
>> 
>> Summary: Has Issues
>> 
>> 
>> Major Concerns:
>> 
>> I am confused by the first paragraph in Section 10.  It says that "An
>> object identifier is requested ...", but then code points for COSE
>> and JOSE (not object identifiers) are requested in the subsection.
>> 
>> I am confused by the second paragraph in Section 10.  It says that
>> "There is *currently* no further IANA action required ...".  Please
>> delete this paragraph.
> 
> RS>> If I remember this correctly, I borrowed this from another draft (but perhaps was somewhat ignorant here about proper formulation). I intend to change the first para to "code points are requested for ....". As to the second para, I believe it has some merit to keep this in, in slightly altered form, e.g.,  as "New object identifiers would be required in case one wishes to specify one or more of the "offspring" protocols exemplified in Section 4.4. Specification hereof is, however, outside scope of the current document."
> 
> <<RS

I do not see how the second paragraph gives any direction regarding the IANA registries.

> 
>> Minor Concerns:
>> 
>> Requirements Language section is out of date.  It should reference
>> RFC 8174 in addition to RFC 2119, as follows:
>> 
>>    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>>    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
>>    "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
>>    BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
>>    capitals, as shown here.
> 
> RS>> will do. As minor point (from a non-native speaker's perspective): shouldn't the last part of the above sentence read "if, and only if, these appear...."? <<RS

RFC 8174 calls for this exact text.

> 
>> Section 2 says: "... reuse of existing generic code ...";  I do not know
>> what is meant by "generic".  It either needs to be defined, reworded, or
>> dropped.  I note that elsewhere in the document "existing code" is used.
> RS>> I will add a sentence to that effect, e.g., "(Here, generic code refers to an implementation that does not depend on hardcoded domain parameters (see also Section 6).)" <<RS

Thanks.

>> 
>> I expected Section 9 to say something about public keys being unique
>> identifiers of the private key holder.
> 
> RS>> I will add an extra paragraph to this effect, e.g., "Use of a public key in any protocol for which successful execution evidences knowledge of the corresponding private key implicitly indicates the entity holding this private key.  Reuse of this public key with more than one protocol or more than one protocol instantiation may, therefore, allow traceability of this entity." <<RS

Also, using the same public key with different addresses allows an observer to correlate them.

> 
>> 
>> Some introduction text at the beginning of each Appendix would be very
>> helpful.  Please tell the reader what they will learn by delving into
>> the subsections of the appendix.
> RS>> I will reflect on this somewhat more (while also considering "guidance to the reader" remarks in Daniel Migault's Early IoTDir review).  Broadly speaking, though, inclusion of all these appendices makes the entire docment self-contained, including arithmetic, representations, how-to-convert details, etc. <<RS

Yes, I understand that.  Some of the appendicies have introductory text, but other do not.  I think they all should have introductory text.

>> Nits:
>> 
>> Section 4.2 says: "... at the end of hereof ...".  This does not tell
>> me anything useful.  I suggest deleting this phrase.
> RS>> I will change this to "at the end hereof" (i.e., will remove "of" - a glitch). Here, one can only recover the y-coordinate at the end of the Montgomery ladder, since one needs the x-coordinates of k*G and (k+1)*G to make this work. <<RS

I think it would be better to say: ... at the end of the Montgomery ladder ..."

Russ