ChaCha20, Poly1305, and Their Use in the Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKE) and IPsec
draft-ietf-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305-12
Yes
(Kathleen Moriarty)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2015-07-08 for -11)
Unknown
Agree with the comments about toning down the language in the first paragraph.
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -11)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2015-07-07 for -11)
Unknown
intro: "gold standard" is being a bit too keen IMO, I'd say toning the language down a bit would be better. intro: 3DES may be the "only other widely supported" cipher for IPsec, but that's not true more generally. section 2 says: "As the ChaCha20 block function is not applied directly to the plaintext, no padding should be necessary." That "should" could be confusing as written if a reader thinks it means their code doesn't have to do padding. It might be better to e.g. say something like "In theory no padding is needed for this cipher, however, in keeping with..." section 3: Is "SHOULD inlude no padding" really right? I'd have thought a MAY was better there. "MUST accept any length" is also a bit odd - what if I (try:-) add loads of padding? Appendices: thanks for those - I assume someone checked them for you? (I didn't:-)
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -11)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -11)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -11)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-07-07 for -11)
Unknown
This is easier than usual to read for this sort of draft :-) -- Section 1, 1st paragraph: I concur with Stephen's comment. Furthermore, this entire paragraph pretty much reads like advertising copy. Can it be toned down a bit? -- 8.1 (Normative References) The reference to [RFC7539] is a normative downref. I don't see it on the downref registry, nor was it mentioned in the last call notice. (For the record, I think it's a reasonable downref.)
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -11)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -11)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -11)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -11)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-07-08 for -11)
Unknown
Juergen Schoenwaelder's comment's from the opsdir review were applied in version 11.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -11)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -11)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -11)
Unknown