Ondřej Surý
2016-12-12 09:38:35 UTC
Magnus and Dan,
thanks for the review.
Magnus, you are right, I have removed the first full paragraph
about "security properties" from Security Considerations
from my git version as the security properties of EdDSA
are better described in Normative references anyway.
https://gitlab.labs.nic.cz/labs/ietf/commit/7b52c8e2bbe44042a279a81b960270fdd103d9a2
Dan,
good catches, I fixed the nits in the git:
https://gitlab.labs.nic.cz/labs/ietf/commit/bbfc7ce43fb1f46c91fb7f5de564d907d035aadf
I would be happy to upload next revision after Last Call
is finished or just let the RFC editors to fix it.
Cheers,
--
Ondřej Surý -- Technical Fellow
--------------------------------------------
CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- Laboratoře CZ.NIC
Milesovska 5, 130 00 Praha 3, Czech Republic
mailto:***@nic.cz https://nic.cz/
--------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
----- Original Message -----
thanks for the review.
Magnus, you are right, I have removed the first full paragraph
about "security properties" from Security Considerations
from my git version as the security properties of EdDSA
are better described in Normative references anyway.
https://gitlab.labs.nic.cz/labs/ietf/commit/7b52c8e2bbe44042a279a81b960270fdd103d9a2
Dan,
good catches, I fixed the nits in the git:
https://gitlab.labs.nic.cz/labs/ietf/commit/bbfc7ce43fb1f46c91fb7f5de564d907d035aadf
I would be happy to upload next revision after Last Call
is finished or just let the RFC editors to fix it.
Cheers,
--
Ondřej Surý -- Technical Fellow
--------------------------------------------
CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- Laboratoře CZ.NIC
Milesovska 5, 130 00 Praha 3, Czech Republic
mailto:***@nic.cz https://nic.cz/
--------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, 12 December, 2016 02:44:18
Subject: Secdir review of draft-ietf-curdle-dnskey-eddsa-02
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.
This document describes how to use two two specific Edwards Curves
(Elliptic Curves) in conjunction with DNSSEC, namely ed25519 and
ed448.
The only comment I have on this document is that the Security
"Ed25519 and Ed448 offers improved security properties and
implementation characteristics compared to RSA and ECDSA algorithms"
I suggest either adding references to proofs of these statements or
alternatively just remove the sentence (since it doesn't really add
anything to the memo); the remaining paragraphs in the Security
Considerations section is what really covers what someone implementing
the memo should know or be aware of.
-- Magnus
~~~~Subject: Secdir review of draft-ietf-curdle-dnskey-eddsa-02
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.
This document describes how to use two two specific Edwards Curves
(Elliptic Curves) in conjunction with DNSSEC, namely ed25519 and
ed448.
The only comment I have on this document is that the Security
"Ed25519 and Ed448 offers improved security properties and
implementation characteristics compared to RSA and ECDSA algorithms"
I suggest either adding references to proofs of these statements or
alternatively just remove the sentence (since it doesn't really add
anything to the memo); the remaining paragraphs in the Security
Considerations section is what really covers what someone implementing
the memo should know or be aware of.
-- Magnus
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, 11 December, 2016 12:21:25
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-curdle-dnskey-eddsa-02
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review result: Ready with Nits
Summary: Ready, with nits
I am not an expert in this field, but the document seems to meet its
goals, it's clear and precise
1. Section 4: s/Section5.1.7/Sections 5.1.7/
2. Section 8: 'The following entry has been added to
the registry' - I may be wrong, but the section seems to define two
new entries in the registry rather than one
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-curdle-dnskey-eddsa-02
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review result: Ready with Nits
Summary: Ready, with nits
I am not an expert in this field, but the document seems to meet its
goals, it's clear and precise
1. Section 4: s/Section5.1.7/Sections 5.1.7/
2. Section 8: 'The following entry has been added to
the registry' - I may be wrong, but the section seems to define two
new entries in the registry rather than one