As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
The requested status is Standard Track. This is necessary for
inter-operability and as such the Standard Track seems the
most appropriated status.
The OPS Directorate wondered why version 07 was a Standard Track
document and not an informational document as no normative 2119 words.
The reason for being a standard track is that we expect the implementation
that implement SSH to follow these recommendations. The consensus was
to explicitly mention it in the document around the lines:
"Standard implementations of SSH SHOULD implement these signature algorithms."
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.
This document describes the use of the Ed25519 and Ed448 digital
signature algorithm in the Secure Shell (SSH) protocol.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?
None opposed.
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
The draft is partly (Ed25519) implemented in OpenSSH by Markus Frield.
The other part (Ed448) of the draft is very similar.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Daniel Migault is the shepherd of the draft. Eric Rescorla is the responsible area director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
The document is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No, the draft is pretty straight forward and had significant reviews. It also
has an existing implementation.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.
No.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.
I have no issues regarding the draft.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
The dratf has two co-authors:
* Loganaden Velvindron confirmed he is not aware of any IPR. He was the most active co-author
* Ben Harris did not confirm.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
see above
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
There were no controversy.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
idnits 2.16.0
/tmp/draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== Line 88 has weird spacing: '... string key...'
== Line 96 has weird spacing: '... string key...'
== Line 110 has weird spacing: '... string sig...'
== Line 118 has weird spacing: '... string sig...'
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 8032
Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFC8032 defines Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)
This document is from the IRTF which does not define standards.
The current document describes the use of this algorithm.
The Downref is justified by RFC3967 as it falls into the following case:
o A standards track document may need to refer to a protocol or
algorithm developed by an external body but modified, adapted, or
profiled by an IETF informational RFC.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This is not in scope of the document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
All references are either informative or normative.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
No.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
The document does not update/obsoletes any RFC.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
The IANA section is appropriately filled.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
Public Key Algorithm Name Reference and SSHFP RR Types for public key
algorithms are IETF review which is fulfilled by the current document.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
no specific check is required by the document.