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

>  > 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