Re: [tcpm] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors-06: (with COMMENT)

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Lars,

Thanks for the corrections. I should note to others that I was his PhD advisor; in other circles, we would never review each others work (as a COI).

We are using the “master key” terminology established by RFC 5925. Its use there appears to be permitted as per the guidance. Even if we were writing 5925 anew, we probably would need to stay with the term due to its prominence in the crypto community. 
(FWIW, I found it amusing that the advice was prepared by groups including “Toastmasters”, a name that itself uses “master”).

As to boilerplate, it would be easier to keep current if it were kept *stable*. I’ll see what I can do to sync it, but I will leave verification of that to the RFC Editor.

Joe

—
Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com

> On Mar 1, 2022, at 7:42 AM, Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors-06: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The datatracker state does not indicate whether to include the
> consensus boilerplate for this document.
> 
> Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
> guidance:
> 
> * Terms "master" and "master_key"; alternatives might be "active",
>   "central", "initiator", "leader", "main", "orchestrator", "parent",
>   "primary", "server".
> 
> Thanks to Peter E. Yee for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/CHS1WZam2FsNmxLR2z9sutDZzj0).
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
> address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
> automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
> will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
> did with these suggestions.
> 
> Document still refers to the "Simplified BSD License", which was corrected in
> the TLP on September 21, 2021. It should instead refer to the "Revised BSD
> License". The document boilerplate overall seems to be 10+ years out of date.
> 
> 
>