Last Call Review of draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-01-04
Requested 2018-12-21
Authors Ben Harris, Loganaden Velvindron
Draft last updated 2019-01-06
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Linda Dunbar
State Completed
Review review-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07-genart-lc-dunbar-2019-01-06
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2019-01-06


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-??
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review Date: 2019-01-06
IETF LC End Date: 2019-01-04
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat


This document proposes two names for public key algorithms (which are specified by other RFCs): ssh-ed25519 & ssh-ed448

Major issues:

There is no "Standard" being specified by this document. The document has a few sentences to explain "public key algorithm for use with SSH in accordance with RFC4253, RFC4251" and give a name. and One sentence to say "Signatures are generated according to the procedure in RFC8032". 

I don't understand why it is "Standard Track" document, non do I understand why it is a WG document. Does it take a whole WG to come out with a name for an algorithm specified in an RFC? 

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: 

Linda Dunbar