Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04
review-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04-genart-lc-even-2016-04-07-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 04) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2016-04-05 | |
| Requested | 2016-03-24 | |
| Authors | Adam Langley, Wan-Teh Chang, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos, Joachim Strombergson, Simon Josefsson | |
| Draft last updated | 2016-04-07 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Roni Even
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Dan Harkins Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Stefan Winter |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Roni Even |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04-genart-lc-even-2016-04-07 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 04 | |
| Review result | Almost Ready | |
| Review completed: | 2016-04-07 |
Review
review-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04-genart-lc-even-2016-04-07
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04 Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date:2016–3-28 IETF LC End Date: 2016–4-9 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC. Major issues: I am wondering why this is a standard track document and not informational since the registration requirements are specification required. (RFC5246) I am also wondering why this document updates RFC5246 and RFC6347. Reading the document it looked to me that the registration document is used also to endorse this cypher suite by the IETF and if this is the case my view is that there should be two documents, one Informational for registration and the will be standard track and update RFC5246 and RFC6347 For Example the following text from section 1 “ Therefore, a new stream cipher to replace RC4 and address all the previous issues is needed. “ provides what may look as a normative recommendation. Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: