> On Mar 30, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Roni Even <ron.even....@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
Just giving my opinion here, will let the sec people provide an authoritative answer since they raised the issue. But to my mind there is quite a difference between a national standard (defined and standardized by a national government) and “not an international standard.” “Not an international standard” is a much broader category (e.g., I would claim that IETF standards are global, but not international, standards). I thought the objection was to the national standard. I haven’t looked closely at this draft and have no opinion on its status, just reflecting my memory of the aria draft. Alissa > 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
