Hi Roni,
On 30/03/2016 15:21, Roni Even wrote:
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.
This cipher came from CFRG (in IRTF) and I think there is a desire to
endorse it for use in TLS.
"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
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
