[secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-hash-sig-08

Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com> Mon, 29 July 2019 06:56 UTC

Return-Path: <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F9C1200F6; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 23:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 TLs3mdSUw1-M; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 23:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x236.google.com (mail-lj1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02A4512008C; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 23:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x236.google.com with SMTP id x25so57534410ljh.2; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 23:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=5T1EmNSZhIuBwdCeyKOBzZm6nUSx3Zcr2LlPGvjXvJQ=; b=EPF90ky5rQbjKkm1YpxXMwqRKG1zQfeD9HbhwSdqswcUWcUsjrw7p2hk2ZYbGvwqS7 DfzjQs2OMFwo/5PWSQ/TmIYutqoUC51MS40u7PAslQX4w8eEFiDwPa2Q2nyIVoCdjukf MB2sFSktgYyFmTHN6cauEm92VTfo1okAeYWmMp/1SRwjnWB5JyGjJJxeYqNedHPy387P LW1KUOa8G1E3sfW9zIs57LA0aDlA8Kf4B6dpMNIW7Eli4ckPxuBCl0L6TydukaszbcI5 Et/pVUn/Mq6kISAIaAR8fYq8vl7NtlEu8xEp0w1605dQZN66YntHOEnrP8pEejPNsY7z y24w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=5T1EmNSZhIuBwdCeyKOBzZm6nUSx3Zcr2LlPGvjXvJQ=; b=qC4Oas7kvu4ihqXBhF9MpuDo073tjLSFC4IH0LOhn0SVzR4pjeycefYTQXYXaDnrg1 qdViYTrIJtXbxmEcfOUHDSgTdxWAA4ClOew3VW62PoOluLg+UHLCpQby9awYNgrRQDFO Ur8A53JHzQhM5OchyZqiaeSUqy322gW9JF9OUNF7fhsE1igVTcSBxCYBw8sHNtHDSh4P icMU9jRNGvQZMPxMNnh0zKOH4DlXO4HOguFACaOeIIzzkjhgQRX1Ap7WVU1ZyQQRYfqe LEAfpsOCnz96kPXgCs+UHxExeshQIMjSDJ+03RnfhBN+4F5Mv/qKq5bNpCywMvB0akZ4 UfJQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWEuPgSU/ns9sDedlgJD02GgzBiUX6D2QWZS3+eOp/FflvMy9uF l5nfnO4paeQcEgcBMfrSLv6jN//pPJcXtKh9raKqsXJp
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwnBbTPLxbNRgTc67fSTaONsk9v8vIt4pLULAavystF3pqzLXqJpWkBsR9QiIb3ikFjS3CYDS2dHHF/a76cMoM=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9a19:: with SMTP id o25mr57161221lji.63.1564383358831; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 23:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 23:55:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFOuuo6kDumeiH-k9yoUx3Ug85xYfTPsPoGSNVO=6SvWkvU=9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lamps-cms-hash-sig.all@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000655516058ecc62ce"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/XNrf0sfjbejE9ditl4Lu8tGOx0M>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-hash-sig-08
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 06:56:06 -0000

I have 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 editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

Summary: Ready

I don't see any problems with this.  The content is thorough.  Editorally,
though, I might suggest that there is not really enough tutorial
information for someone that is not familiar with these sorts of algorithms
to understand this document, so perhaps either there could be another
document that this points to, complete with figures (which is the only way
to really understand these I think), or more tutorial information could be
in this document, or perhaps just say in the beginning that the reader is
assumed to already  understand these algorithms.

Radia