Clarifications for Elliptic Curve Cryptography Subject Public Key Information
draft-ietf-lamps-5480-ku-clarifications-03

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.

Roman Danyliw Yes

(Alexey Melnikov) Yes

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Comment (2020-03-03 for -02)
If further clarifications can be made based on the latest email from the Gen-ART reviewer, that would be good.

Benjamin Kaduk No Objection

Comment (2020-03-02 for -02)
I'm somewhat amenable to the genart reviewer's concerns that we are
implicitly asserting restrictions in RFC 5480 usage by describing the
algorithms defined by 5480 as "key agreement algorithms"; RFC 5480 does
not seem to use that terminology to refer to id-ecPublicKey.

Section 1

   Cryptography.  As part of these semantics, it defines what
   combinations are permissible for the values of the key usage
   extensions [RFC5280].  [RFC5480] specifies 7 of the 9 values; it

nit: IMO, "key usage extensions" would mean both keyUsage and
extendedKeyUsage, but this document considers only the identified bits
in the original keyUsage extension, and thus the singular "extension"
would be more appropriate.

Section 4

What are the considerations that apply to implementations that follow
RFC 5480 but not this document, e.g., existing implementations that
allow keyEncipherment and/or dataEncipherment?  Specifically, if we are
forbidding their usage, is it because there are vulnerabilities to doing
so?  It seems like we should mention them here.

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2020-03-03 for -02)
No email
send info
Thanks to Tim for the OpsDir review, and Sean for addressing it.

(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2020-02-25 for -00)
Thanks for a nice, super-short and to-the-point document.  I hate to pick on anything here, but:

   then the following
   values also MUST NOT be present:

Do you mean "MUST NOT also be present"?  The "also" seems misplaced where it is, and it made me wonder if I misunderstood.  An alternative fix would be to simply remove "also".

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Adam Roach) No Objection

Martin Vigoureux No Objection

Éric Vyncke No Objection

Comment (2020-02-25 for -00)
Ultra short document :-)

Anyway, a minor comment: what is the location of the text updating the section 3 of RFC 5480? Should it go at the end of the existing section 3 (my guess)? Or at the beginning ? or somewhere in the middle ? Should it replace completely or partially the existing section 3? 

-éric

PS: I know that my comment is mostly larger than the update itself ;-)

Magnus Westerlund No Objection