Hi, Adding Alissa to the thread We had a similar issue with draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp . The result was to downgrade from Standard to Informational. This required to go back to the WG.
I also noted that there is some text in section one that looks like a recommendation which will look like endorsing this cypher suite by the IETF. "Therefore, a new stream cipher to replace RC4 and address all the previous issues is needed. It is the purpose of this document to describe a secure stream cipher for both TLS and DTLS that is comparable to RC4 in speed on a wide range of platforms and can be implemented easily without being vulnerable to software side-channel attacks." This will be less strong if the document is Informational So to me it looked like a major issue. Roni > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie] > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 12:31 AM > To: Roni Even > Cc: gen-art@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04 > > > Hi Roni, and gen-art (other cc's dropped) > > So, a gen-art question to the gen-art reviewers :-) > > What is the criterion for major issue? > > I'd not have thought that the issues below (which do deserve > a response) would be such a big deal. I do get that various > collections of IETFers will disagree about such, but I'd hope > that gen-art would/could normalise it's opinion, and if this > is the result, I'm surprised. > > Thanks, > S. > > On 29/03/16 22:00, Roni Even wrote: > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you > > may receive. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04 > > > > Reviewer: Roni Even > > > > Review Date:2016-3-28 > > > > IETF LC End Date: 2016-4-9 > > > > IESG Telechat date: > > > > > > > > Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track > > RFC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major issues: > > > > I am wondering why this is a standard track document and not > informational > > since the registration requirements are specification required. (RFC5246) > > > > > > > > I am also wondering why this document updates RFC5246 and RFC6347 > > > > > > > > Minor issues: > > > > > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
