Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519-01

S Moonesamy <> Fri, 30 May 2014 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA9881A0527; Fri, 30 May 2014 12:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.441
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V_p7F-MUcM8O; Fri, 30 May 2014 12:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF301A04A1; Fri, 30 May 2014 12:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4UJ3sN4028788 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 30 May 2014 12:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1401476653; bh=XiDfTv+NFK0lxZ8atVBxM2B4v4LsDvgYOOslRfKbqGk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=dwEJnWcRpTonlbsXRTn87vKnoQP5IaYYZbdv6IJQznXEhC9f3Wu/YPjFAza/Yya+F VXlzbsiQ0mIDtyQl6q3M8jYp+DqV8SdChJ2p6jl/v+H05YfYzmMeJol+LeupH24qQP xK8arVmFtfveZunXahMSEvI/eNuIuZVd4adlzaug=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1401476653;; bh=XiDfTv+NFK0lxZ8atVBxM2B4v4LsDvgYOOslRfKbqGk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=bCOa7ZD+HxiEIFYtc0JBU11uLQmFlmDR1mkm27WBNEI20Cxet0ZbyVpKD6PcIKn2N hn/BYEu11ejqpij44/kf1PqSZKIvbp1meExe95qBqVp2psbTifHSyqvnmsz+FbwxJY ZwpBl1hk2u2vm+3BG339GCo3f2n/scyBC4NYI9xo=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 11:56:58 -0700
To: Uri Blumenthal <>, "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 19:04:23 -0000

Hi Uri,
At 11:16 30-05-2014, Uri Blumenthal wrote:
>I personally would not accept source code as the sole specification. IETF
>tradition has always been providing both the "verbal" description in English
>(or as close to it as practical) *plus* a reference implementation, preferably
>more than one.
>Mere existence of an implementation has never been an excuse to weasel out of
>actually documenting the protocol.

IETF tradition is not to copy SecDir reviews to  I 
agree that it is good to have a verbal description of a specification 
in English.  It helps to have an implementation.

The draft documents a code point assignment; it is not about a protocol.

S. Moonesamy