Re: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-08

"Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" <pkampana@cisco.com> Thu, 11 April 2019 03:57 UTC

Return-Path: <pkampana@cisco.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 E8D23120258; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 20:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=FOxyLb0E; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=Wie6iZNB
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 1QK391erZZYz; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 20:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CB4712020A; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 20:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2875; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1554955052; x=1556164652; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=l790YszbEaWXisLsPg21vOKYEQ7iTJKLP9irT1Nc7yI=; b=FOxyLb0EL6jqRibd1JQc5jz9zuexxJ9MczIHs1zFBNsTLUmID/OkRUDS Gs2PBUKhXWy69h50LqjI0/cjXD24i/Y8mfXTZ18yGLD4DyAPX/nMFLwqT 7Y0wKBRx1pBxTNfopin5NUGE7T3huDhyyBrx4YdES0Pm5U3WWyOwsvNlG Y=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AFX0omxTt6izLBtbmMgsmH7k0/dpsv++ubAcI9p?= =?us-ascii?q?oqja5Pea2//pPkeVbS/uhpkESXBNfA8/wRje3QvuigQmEG7Zub+FE6OJ1XH1?= =?us-ascii?q?5g640NmhA4RsuMCEn1NvnvOjQ5FcFaXVls13q6KkNSXs35Yg6arw=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A4AAB7uq5c/5JdJa1lGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBUgQBAQEBCwGBPSQsA2hUIAQLJ4dVA48fgleXGIEugSQDVA4?= =?us-ascii?q?BARgNB4RAAoVrIjUIDQEBAwEBCQECAQJtHAyFSgEBAQECAQEBJRMGAQEsCwE?= =?us-ascii?q?EBwQCAQgRBAEBHgEQJwsdCAIEAQ0FCIMbgV0DDQgBDqA5AooUgW0zgnkBAQW?= =?us-ascii?q?FAhiCDAMFgTABi0YXgUA/gRFGgkw+gmEBAYFjgzmCJqYNCQKIBIwbggaJeoh?= =?us-ascii?q?ki1aGIo1cAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFRATWBPQUMCHAVO4JsH4FrDBeDTIUUhT9ygSi?= =?us-ascii?q?PRQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,335,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="258678713"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 11 Apr 2019 03:57:31 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com (xch-rcd-006.cisco.com [173.37.102.16]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x3B3vVis016573 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 03:57:31 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com (173.37.102.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 22:57:30 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 22:57:30 -0500
Received: from NAM05-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 22:57:29 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cisco-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=3HifaSZN5g3mIVrYsBbxHVaPvfLTFlT1sZB4IjTWkH4=; b=Wie6iZNBKcAQWCSagbb9onWrlXtgkNXUE/oxSNzv62H8syA4eCOrscJP+RVFRbq8Jy3jNo0DBcacIhmY+k0yz0QxhAKnI4KCi8W8ie1zP9IAaFHh5BqrwIayEWFC6aOfCvMyjRY0Y3rGGloibHVFyWmeeLpeGBOZsDR+T8cOavY=
Received: from CY4PR11MB1527.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.172.70.18) by CY4PR11MB1445.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.172.67.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1771.13; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 03:57:28 +0000
Received: from CY4PR11MB1527.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::11b1:a7a0:b5b8:bef]) by CY4PR11MB1527.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::11b1:a7a0:b5b8:bef%8]) with mapi id 15.20.1771.016; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 03:57:28 +0000
From: "Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" <pkampana@cisco.com>
To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>
CC: "spasm@ietf.org" <spasm@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-08
Thread-Index: AQHU71OLq3d10ebArkeXoHO8YvndM6Y2U6qg
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 03:57:28 +0000
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1527D5A7603721B0361C519AC92F0@CY4PR11MB1527.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <155486946127.19649.7242764557830648898@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <155486946127.19649.7242764557830648898@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=pkampana@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c4:1002::12d]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d4554807-27aa-41b3-5aaa-08d6be31d10e
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600139)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:CY4PR11MB1445;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY4PR11MB1445:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY4PR11MB1445C728C7203791EBDA74BBC92F0@CY4PR11MB1445.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 00046D390F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(376002)(136003)(39860400002)(396003)(346002)(366004)(199004)(189003)(13464003)(51444003)(7696005)(446003)(74316002)(53936002)(186003)(99286004)(33656002)(9686003)(966005)(486006)(55016002)(76176011)(105586002)(25786009)(478600001)(6436002)(6306002)(6506007)(46003)(71200400001)(106356001)(8936002)(71190400001)(97736004)(14454004)(229853002)(8676002)(256004)(81156014)(81166006)(102836004)(476003)(6116002)(52536014)(11346002)(5660300002)(54906003)(2906002)(316002)(2501003)(7736002)(86362001)(4326008)(53546011)(68736007)(305945005)(6246003)(110136005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CY4PR11MB1445; H:CY4PR11MB1527.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: cbjSKwGtvBojZ3YhyDt/yitfcGnQQZsDXE9XRpmDuA98quY8Uf8d2CIs97tpcauetv/vOOHzvyi9kFd/mHER0KdTJeJJiBQ2jJCox/p8rRj+au8MEorujlT86tof1L94459ZbTZoic4pWVcUf2pdXCxC8GTmn4DrB/gB9873e7v5AhIB5EGhulespPUyHSv4tqKYLcu/XhVEJm5Ero/7SjZx7n9+pu97GeQbOrlESHV/5ZE+j0VjHk+KLi7OZt7Sf77ARM974JbwB9n0M/+pvjOp+f7Dyn2pT5mQtEJjk1gjLubfVZZ24RZQLe7LIOhyJO9QPREVAAhjeDzfzoCUYWw9F2tfgEOiuMSRLBkwT0+7CnfEeFnVRtHvT2WAhQM5/FIJ1p+O+cklC134r2cok2oumQT3B2MKFB4lr7CRzV8=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d4554807-27aa-41b3-5aaa-08d6be31d10e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 11 Apr 2019 03:57:28.8556 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR11MB1445
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.16, xch-rcd-006.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-10.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/u7AC6CoctUcoe6ytHN0_c9AuwKU>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-08
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 03:57:34 -0000

Thank you Tianran. 

> The normative and informative reference in this draft are not clear to me. I think that RFC8017 and RFC8174 should not be normative reference. And why some standard tack RFC are listed in informative reference?

Indeed RFC8017 and RFC8174 are Normative References. RFC8017 is Informational draft but we are keeping it in the Normative References even though idnits complains because we need a normative reference for RSASSA-PSS otherwise someone implementing our draft would not know RSASSA-PSS. RFC4056 does the same thing with RSASS-PSS v2.1. RFC8174 is Normative because we must be read to understand what the capital letters mean in our draft. It is normative in other standards like RFC8366 as well. We have some Informative References that are Standard RFCs. The reason we do that is because someone does not need to read them to understand or implement the proposed draft as per https://ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-references/

All the Editorial nits are fixed in the next iterations that will be pushed out soon. 

Panos


-----Original Message-----
From: Spasm <spasm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou via Datatracker
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 12:11 AM
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: spasm@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake.all@ietf.org
Subject: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-08

Reviewer: Tianran Zhou
Review result: Has Issues

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Document reviewed: draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-08 Intended Status:  Standards Track

Summary:
In general, this document is clear to me. I did not see any special operational or network management related issue. It's almost ready to be published. There are some issues and nits.

Issues:
The normative and informative reference in this draft are not clear to me.
I think that [RFC8017](Informational) and [RFC8174](BCP) should not be normative reference. And why some standard tack RFC are listed in informative reference?

Editorial:
line 102: redundand -> redundant
line 126,129: Deterministric -> Deterministic line 314: algorithsm -> algorithms line 378: subtitutions -> substitutions line 763,777: Determinstic -> Deterministic

_______________________________________________
Spasm mailing list
Spasm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm