Re: [tcpinc] Making ECDHE-Curve25519 the only MTI for tcpcrypt

Sounds like a good plan. Thanks!

> Am 18.10.2017 um 00:58 schrieb Black, David <David.Black@dell.com>:
> 
>>> Mirja and David Black: can you provide guidance here?
>> 
>> Yes, if the change is the right thing to do, you should do it. If there is
>> agreement in the working group to make this change, I don't think we need
>> another working group last call (but that's actually in the judgment of the
>> chairs). So the only question would be, do we need another IETF last call for
>> this? However, the IETF last call is still running. Therefore I would like to
>> ask you to bring attention about this change to the ietf@ietf.org mail list,
> 
> I concur, and I will go do that by forwarding Gregorio's message to the IETF
> list, providing a pointer to ianG's message of support and indicating that the
> draft authors concur, also with a message pointer.  My rationale for forwarding
> Gregorio's message is that it provides solid answers to the inevitable "why is
> this change being made?" question both directly and in the form of a pointer
> to the extensive DJB & T. Lange implementation-oriented critique of the
> NIST curves.
> 
> Thanks, --David
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tcpinc [mailto:tcpinc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mirja Kühlewind
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:43 AM
>> To: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>; David Mazieres expires 2018-01-14 PST
>> <mazieres-ddragqirgwht7ezx2d39a3jw72@temporary-
>> address.scs.stanford.edu>; Black, David <david.black@emc.com>
>> Cc: tcpinc <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Gregorio Guidi <greg_g@posteo.net>; ianG
>> <iang@iang.org>
>> Subject: Re: [tcpinc] Making ECDHE-Curve25519 the only MTI for tcpcrypt
>> 
>> Hi David, hi Kyle, hi all,
>> 
>> On 17.10.2017 16:13, Kyle Rose wrote:
>>>    Question two, if no one object to this change and some people want to
>>>    see it, is whether it is now too late to make this change without
>>>    jeopardizing the RFC.  Can we still make such a change in last call?
>>>    It's obviously not a lot of text to change, but a fairly big semantic
>>>    change.  We'd appreciate guidance on this question from people with more
>>>    IETF experience.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Mirja and David Black: can you provide guidance here?
>> 
>> Yes, if the change is the right thing to do, you should do it. If there is
>> agreement in the working group to make this change, I don't think we need
>> another working group last call (but that's actually in the judgment of the
>> chairs). So the only question would be, do we need another IETF last call for
>> this? However, the IETF last call is still running. Therefore I would like to
>> ask you to bring attention about this change to the ietf@ietf.org mail list,
>> meaning one of the authors could reply to the IETF last call email and
>> explain that and why this change is planned. And then we can probably handle
>> this basically like a last call comment and just update the draft
>> respectively. In this case it would also be good if the authors could submit
>> the updated version right at the end of the IETF last call, so this Friday,
>> such that the ADs could review the updated version for the telechat next
>> week. Would that be possible?
>> 
>> Mirja
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tcpinc mailing list
>> Tcpinc@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc