From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Thread-Topic: [secdir] secdir review of draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519-01
Thread-Index: AQHPeWUfo5K1BZN1JUqd29NR7Q9teZtZWecAgABWFICAABeMAIAAC10AgAAdfoA=
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 20:42:31 +0000
Message-ID: <868A3427-6B46-4110-8D4B-45857D260C1D@cisco.com>
References: <2ACBFFE4-BCEB-4F6D-A2D3-861BADF543DE@cisco.com>
 <6.2.5.6.2.20140530040300.0bb93070@elandnews.com>
 <D1342262-144C-4939-B005-5E042CAF7394@cisco.com>
 <20140530141618.kgnw4u9b4gw80o4s@webmail.mit.edu>
 <6.2.5.6.2.20140530114625.0c0d1aa8@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140530114625.0c0d1aa8@elandnews.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <CE59F929DCD8674083BE1224E39AAE27@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/gskPusrx2dB8pLX9nsucEe2Wxuc
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>,
 "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>,
 "draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519.all@tools.ietf.org"
 <draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519-01
Precedence: list


On May 30, 2014, at 11:56 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:

> Hi Uri,
> At 11:16 30-05-2014, Uri Blumenthal wrote:
>> I personally would not accept source code as the sole specification. IET=
F
>> tradition has always been providing both the "verbal" description in Eng=
lish
>> (or as close to it as practical) *plus* a reference implementation, pref=
erably
>> more than one.
>>=20
>> Mere existence of an implementation has never been an excuse to weasel o=
ut of
>> actually documenting the protocol.
>=20
> IETF tradition is not to copy SecDir reviews to ietf@ietf.org.  I agree t=
hat it is good to have a verbal description of a specification in English. =
 It helps to have an implementation.
>=20
> The draft documents a code point assignment; it is not about a protocol.
>=20

[Joe] My concern is that there is not enough information in the draft to kn=
ow what goes into the hash that is the subject of the code point assignment=
.  Perhaps it is obvious to someone who implemented the SSH code that is no=
t documented in this draft, but it is not obvious to me as a reader of the =
draft.=20

> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy=20