Re: [openpgp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-02.txt (fwd)

Ángel <angel@16bits.net> Fri, 26 February 2021 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <angel@16bits.net>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C7953A1482 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 17:19:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EsEzyxJDQqWR for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 17:19:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.direccionemail.com (mail.direccionemail.com [199.195.249.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F30A3A145E for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 17:19:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <442e06bef7798e1d6b319cb63279473feeea6989.camel@16bits.net>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C1ngel?= <angel@16bits.net>
To: openpgp@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 02:19:47 +0100
In-Reply-To: <8473b015f635c0f88f9bceed8acda0f8.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org>
References: <7d8bdda1-4e5c-6c10-f3cd-1d191fad595c@nohats.ca> <4f3d66b74b46b5b8bf27b5e1589bf80e.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org> <87a6rug0x5.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <8473b015f635c0f88f9bceed8acda0f8.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/4WrpyV7Q3As83K0ypMeRDhtxmF8>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-02.txt (fwd)
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 01:20:02 -0000

Hello all

After reviewing these two drafts, I agree there are no substantial
changes in draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-00.txt from rfc4880, and
consider draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-02.txt good to iterate from.

Some specific comments are provided below.

Looking forward to seeing you all at the meeting.

- Ángel



crypto-refresh-00 nitpicks
=====

I would prefer to keep single quotes for values referring to single
bytes standing by themselves, as rfc4880 did. -00 changed them to
double quotes but using single quotes as in C seems better.

This happens in
* 5.9.  Literal Data Packet (Tag 11)
('b', 't', 'u', 'l', '1') vs ("b", "t", "u", "l", "1")

* 6.2.  Forming ASCII Armor with '-' and ':'
* 7.1.  Dash-Escaped Text with '-'

but does *not* apply to the characters in 8. Regular Expressions

Additionally, in 7.1 a single-quoted space (' ') was
converted to use backticks (` `), which seems like an
error when converting the document. It makes sense
in some markdown conversions, but not in the rfc results.

In appendix A, an extra space was inserted between "Philip R." 
and "Zimmermann" (Appendix C in -02)


crypto-refresh-01/02 nitpicks
=====
At 1. Introduction, change "RFC 5581 (Camellia cipher)" to "RFC 5581
(The Camellia Cipher in OpenPGP)" or "RFC 5581 (Camellia Cipher in
OpenPGP)", since just "Camellia cipher" could be confused with the
description itself of Camellia (rfc3713).
"ECC for OpenPGP" should perhaps be changed to "ECC in OpenPGP" which is the
preposition used in that rfc title.
Full name of RFC 6637 is "Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) in OpenPGP" and
would be the proper one if we wanted to use the complete names of the rfc,
albeit I don't think that would matter either way.


I would prefer to see the new section "ECC Curve OID" as 9.5 instead of 9.2