Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-12
review-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-12-secdir-lc-housley-2020-08-27-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2020-09-08
Requested 2020-08-25
Authors Rene Struik
Draft last updated 2020-08-27
Completed reviews Secdir Early review of -08 by Russ Housley (diff)
Iotdir Early review of -08 by Daniel Migault (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Russ Housley
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Roni Even
Assignment Reviewer Russ Housley 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-12-secdir-lc-housley-2020-08-27
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/bwfAZGGlwfJagmF_a3E-yHs3kJA
Reviewed rev. 12
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2020-08-27

Review
review-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-12-secdir-lc-housley-2020-08-27

I reviewed this document as part of the Security Directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Security Area
Directors.  Document authors, document editors, and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-12
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2020-08-27
IETF LC End Date: 2020-09-08
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Thank you for addressing my earlier comments on -08.

Summary: Ready


Major Concerns:  None


Minor Concerns:  None


Nits:

The Introduction talks about the traditional "short" Weierstrass curve
model, and then most everywhere else talks about short-Weierstrass form.
Can one phrase be used throughout?


Question:

Is support for these curves with in PKIX certificates (see RFC 5280
and RFC 5480) and CMS (see RFC 5652 and RFC 5753) as simple as
assigning an object identifier for the two named curves?  If so, can
Section 10 be expanded to cover these too?