Hi, The issue with ARIA was that it was not international standard and as far as I can see from the references this one is not either. The IETF RFC for it is informational.
Roni > -----Original Message----- > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:ali...@cooperw.in] > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 6:48 PM > To: Roni Even > Cc: Stephen Farrell; gen-art@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04 > > > > On Mar 30, 2016, at 7:21 AM, Roni Even <ron.even....@gmail.com> 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 suspect the issue with aria — that it was nationally defined — does not > apply in this case. > Alissa > > > > > 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
