[lamps] FW: WGLC: draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-02

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Fri, 03 August 2018 19:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10526130FFB for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 12:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 T51grJ1rOI5V for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 12:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1D04130DD7 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 12:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 12:37:27 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: <spasm@ietf.org>
References:
In-Reply-To:
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 12:41:03 -0700
Message-ID: <00b901d42b61$eb8a04a0$c29e0de0$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AdQrWI/gim0DHC1IRr6kopVYbZGOFwACVCpw
X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/oa79ouq5_YOrL0w93TW6HTDnBdE>
Subject: [lamps] FW: WGLC: draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-02
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2018 19:41:33 -0000

Forgot to add to the distribution list.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> 
Sent: Friday, August 3, 2018 12:40 PM
To: 'draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake@ietf.org'
<draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake@ietf.org>
Subject: WGLC: draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-02

Not ready for progression.

* Run the NITS on this document and fix them.  Examples of problems are the
fact that MUST language section is missing, possible incorrect references,
and you have lines that are too long.

*  Introduction - I have a problem with the cardinality of items in the
second and third paragraphs here.  I do not ask that you fix the problems
that I have but you should be ready to address this is you get the same
questions from the RFC Editor or the IESG.  I would consider SHAKE to be a
family of extendable-output hash functions and thus has a cardinality of
one.  The two specific hash functions have a cardinality of greater than
one.  The question of cardinality comes in terms of the usage of 'A', 'is',
'are'.

* Introduction - paragraph 2 - I find the last sentence to be difficult to
read.  The usage of 'and' here seems to be incorrect and it may be difficult
to figure out which pair comes first - resistance or function.

* Introduction - paragraph 3 - I am unaware that ECDSA has a mask generating
function associated with it.  This sentence needs to be cleaned up

* Introduction - paragraph 3 - Consider putting in a reference to the
algorithm identifiers that are not changing.  Probably overkill but still
useful

* Identifiers - This section needs to nail down all parameters associated w/
the different SHAKE functions when used here.  Otherwise you end up with the
first assumption that I made which was d = 128 for SHAKE128 which would not
produce an acceptable result.

* Signatures - Para #3 - you refer to section 3 for OIDs, but they are not
there for public keys.

* IANA Considerations is incorrect and MUST be updated

* Why is there no reference to deterministic ECDSA signatures in the
document.

* The ASN.1 module is absent and needs to be instantiated.  Even doing so
with TBD is sufficient for now.

Jim