Re: [netconf] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-29: (with COMMENT)

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Murray,

Thank you for ever more valuable comments!
Please find responses below.

Kent


> On Feb 1, 2024, at 1:48 AM, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-29: No Objection
> 
> 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Similar to what Paul's DISCUSS says:
> 
> Section 3.5:
> 
>        That said, expert Security opinion suggests that already it is
>        infeasible to break a 128-bit symmetric key using a classical
>        computer, and thus the concern for conveying higher-strength
>        keys begins to lose its allure.
> 
> Can we make a reference to said opinion?  Without that, this looks like
> argument from authority (and an anonymous one at that).

Agreed.  I deleted that whole paragraph in my response to Paul yesterday.


Thanks again!
Kent