Ed25519 and Ed448 Public Key Algorithms for the Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol
draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-11

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this short document. I have one COMMENT and a couple of NITs though (minor and trivial to fix)

=== COMMENT ===

--- Section 2.1 ---
Please use RFC 8174 boilerplate.

=== NIT ===
The "Ed25519" is capitalized in section 1 and all uppercase in section 7.

Section 8 would benefit for editorial review regarding the use of ':' and starting sentence with a capitalized word.

[Ballot comment]
* Section 5

"Signatures are generated according to the procedure in [RFC8032], Section 5.2.6 [RFC8032]."

Shouldn’t this also include Section 5.1.6 of [RFC8032] to generate the signature using Ed25519?

[Ballot comment]
It would be nice if this document briefly noted somewhere what the security properties are of Ed25519 and Ed448, or otherwise give some indication for why supporting these algorithms is a good thing.

In Section 2.1, please use the RFC 8174 boilerplate.

[Ballot comment]
A few editorial nits:

** References in Section 3 – 7, 10 to [RFC4251], [RFC4253] and [RFC8032] are showing up in the format “[RFC#], Section x.x [RFC#]”.  For example, “[RFC4253], Section 6.6 [RFC4253]”.  It should likely only be “Section x.x [RFC#]”.

** Section 8.  Typo.  s/the the/the/

** Section 8.  Typo and making it be “an example”, not “the example”.  s/the SSHFP Resource Record for  the Ed448 public key with SHA-256 fingerprint would be example be /The SSHFP Resource Record for a Ed448 public key with a SHA-256 fingerprint would, for example, be/

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

The requested status is Standard Track. This is necessary for
inter-operability  and as such the Standard Track seems the
most appropriated status. 

The OPS Directorate wondered why version 07 was a Standard Track
document and not an informational document as no normative 2119 words.

The reason for being a standard track is that we expect the implementation
that implement SSH to follow these recommendations. The consensus was
to explicitly mention it in the document around the lines:

"Standard implementations of SSH SHOULD implement these signature algorithms."
 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.

This document describes the use of the Ed25519 and Ed448 digital
  signature algorithm in the Secure Shell (SSH) protocol.

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

None opposed.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

The draft is partly (Ed25519) implemented in OpenSSH by Markus Frield.
The other part (Ed448) of the draft is very similar.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Daniel Migault is the shepherd of the draft. Eric Rescorla is the responsible area director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No, the draft is pretty straight forward and had significant reviews. It also
has an existing implementation.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

I have no issues regarding the draft.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

The dratf has two co-authors:
*  Loganaden Velvindron confirmed he is not aware of any IPR. He was the most active co-author
* Ben Harris did not confirm.



(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

see above

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

There were no controversy.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

idnits 2.16.0

/tmp/draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Line 88 has weird spacing: '... string    key...'

  == Line 96 has weird spacing: '... string    key...'

  == Line 110 has weird spacing: '... string    sig...'

  == Line 118 has weird spacing: '... string    sig...'


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 8032


    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RFC8032 defines Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)
This document is from the IRTF which does not define standards.
The current document describes the use of this algorithm. 

The Downref is justified by RFC3967 as it falls into the following case:
  o  A standards track document may need to refer to a protocol or
      algorithm developed by an external body but modified, adapted, or
      profiled by an IETF informational RFC.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This is not in scope of the document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

All references are either informative or normative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

The document does not update/obsoletes any RFC.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The IANA section is appropriately filled.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

Public Key Algorithm Name Reference and SSHFP RR Types for public key
algorithms are IETF review which is fulfilled by the current document.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

no specific check is required by the document.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the Public Key Algorithm Names registry on the Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters/

two, new algorithm names are to be registered as follows:

Public Key Algorithm Name: ssh-ed25519
Public Key Format: ssh-ed25519
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Note:

Public Key Algorithm Name: ssh-ed448
Public Key Format: ssh-ed448
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Note:

Second, in the SSHFP RR Types for public key algorithms registry on the DNS SSHFP Resource Record Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sshfp-rr-parameters/

a single, new registration is to be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Ed448
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors have suggested a value of 6 for this new registration.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-01-04):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ekr@rtfm.com, daniel.migaultf@ericsson.com, curdle-chairs@ietf.org, curdle@ietf.org, draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448@ietf.org, Daniel Migault
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Ed25519 and Ed448 public key algorithms for the Secure Shell (SSH) protocol) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the CURves, Deprecating and a Little
more Encryption WG (curdle) to consider the following document: - 'Ed25519
and Ed448 public key algorithms for the Secure Shell (SSH)
  protocol'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-01-04. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes the use of the Ed25519 and Ed448 digital
  signature algorithm in the Secure Shell (SSH) protocol.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

The requested status is Standard Track. This is the proper status as it
updates RFC4250 which is with a Standard Track status.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.

This document describes the use of the Ed25519 and Ed448 digital
  signature algorithm in the Secure Shell (SSH) protocol.

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

None opposed.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

The draft is partly (Ed25519) implemented in OpenSSH by Markus Frield.
The other part (Ed448) of the draft is very similar.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Daniel Migault is the shepherd of the draft. Eric Rescorla is the responsible area director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No, the draft is pretty straight forward and had significant reviews. It also
has an existing implementation.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

I have no issues regarding the draft.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

The dratf has two co-authors:
*  Loganaden Velvindron confirmed he is not aware of any IPR. He was the most active co-author
* Ben Harris did not confirm.



(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

see above

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

There were no controversy.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

idnits 2.16.0

/tmp/draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Line 88 has weird spacing: '... string    key...'

  == Line 96 has weird spacing: '... string    key...'

  == Line 110 has weird spacing: '... string    sig...'

  == Line 118 has weird spacing: '... string    sig...'


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 8032


    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RFC8032 defines Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)
This document is from the IRTF which does not define standards.
The current document describes the use of this algorithm. 

The Downref is justified by RFC3967 as it falls into the following case:
  o  A standards track document may need to refer to a protocol or
      algorithm developed by an external body but modified, adapted, or
      profiled by an IETF informational RFC.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This is not in scope of the document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

All references are either informative or normative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

The document does not update/obsoletes any RFC.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The IANA section is appropriately filled.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

Public Key Algorithm Name Reference and SSHFP RR Types for public key
algorithms are IETF review which is fulfilled by the current document.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

no specific check is required by the document.