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 Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2019-01-04
Requested 2018-12-21
Authors Ben Harris, Loganaden Velvindron
Draft last updated 2019-01-02
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 Sheng Jiang
State Completed
Review review-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07-opsdir-lc-jiang-2019-01-02
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 11)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2019-01-02


Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
Review result: Has Issues

Hi, OPS-DIR, Authors,

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This standard track document describes the use of the Ed25519 and Ed448 digital signature algorithm in the Secure Shell (SSH) protocol.  This document is one of the shortest documents I have ever seen. It is clear and well written. However, I have a fundamental issue regarding to its Intended status "Standards Track", describe below. Therefore, it has issues for publication although I think it is easy to fixed - changing the Intended status.

Major issue: this document has Intended status for Standards Track. However, neither this document fails to quota RFC 2119 or has any normative words. Consistently, I don't think the description in this document has any mandatory requirements for any implementations of protocols. Actually, the most important quota of this document, RFC8032, is Informational, which is a Downref in this document. Therefore, I think it is more proper this document intends for Informational status.

Minor issue: no.