Clarifications for Ed25519, Ed448, X25519, and X448 Algorithm Identifiers
draft-ietf-lamps-8410-ku-clarifications-02

[Ballot comment]
Comments:
I agree with John that it seems odd to have a valid ee certificate contain only cRLSign. The text could use a cleanup to split ee-cert from crl issuer cert more clearly, although I think the intention here is obvious.

There is 1 verified and 3 reported erratas in 8410. These could also be fixed by this document update, although a "patch style" update as done here is probably not that different from the existing errata entries, so not a blocker for me.

nits:
The link for "Section 5" points to the section 5 of this document, instead of that of RFC 8410. Likely a tooling issue.

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-lamps-8410-ku-clarifications-01

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Joel Halpern for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ew0t0iQJ9IgBKVrgvsSKviAbMcI).

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]
The introduction is pretty careful about enumerating the changes, but it doesn't mention that new section adds CRL issuer certificates for id-Ed25519 or id-Ed448, and end-entity certificates now have the option of including cRLSign to comply with the spec.

Is it correct that an end-entity certificate could solely include cRLSign and be valid? The text says so. I don't know the protocol but that seems counter-intuitive to me.

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

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-lamps-8410-ku-clarifications-01, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

Michelle Thangtamsatid
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-05-09):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-lamps-8410-ku-clarifications@ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org, spasm@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Clarifications for Ed25519, Ed448, X25519, and X448 Algorithm Identifiers) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Limited Additional Mechanisms for
PKIX and SMIME WG (lamps) to consider the following document: -
'Clarifications for Ed25519, Ed448, X25519, and X448 Algorithm
  Identifiers'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-05-09. 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 updates RFC 8410 to clarify existing and specify
  missing semantics for key usage bits when used in certificates that
  support the Ed25519, Ed448, X25519, and X448 Elliptic Curve
  Cryptography algorithms.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-8410-ku-clarifications/



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

Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-8410-ku-clarifications-01


(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?

  Proposed Standard.  Yes, the header calls for Standards Track.
 
  This new RFC will update RFC 8410, which is a Proposed Standard.
 

(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:

    This document updates RFC 8410 to clarify existing and specify
    missing semantics for key usage bits when used in certificates
    that support the Ed25519, Ed448, X25519, and X448 Elliptic Curve
    Cryptography algorithms.

  Working Group Summary:

    There is consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.

  Document Quality:

    Discussion around this document as well as the discussion around
    draft-ietf-lamps-5480-ku-clarifications shows that this guidance
    is needed.  Here is an example message in the archive:

    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/mSDS2rOYWoX6jb-d9TmXug3OgPo
   
  Personnel:

    Russ Housley is the document shepherd.
    Roman Danyliw 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 shepherd did a thorough review of the document during
  WG Last Call.  Most of the issues were resolved prior to the
  LAMPS WG adopting the document, and the remaining ones were resolved
  at the end of WG Last Call.


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

  No concerns.


(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.

  Several people that were involved in the PKIX WG did reviews.  The
  PKIX WG was the original source of RFC 2459 (and its successors),
  which specifiy the were part of the key usage bits in the first
  place.


(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.

  No concerns.


(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 authors explicitly confirmed that all IPR disclosures required
  for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
  already been filed.


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

  No IPR disclosures were issued against this document.


(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 is consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.


(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 one has threatened an appeal.


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

  This document, once it is approved, will update RFC 8410.


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

  No special reviews are needed.


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

  Yes, all of them are 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.

  There are no downward normative references.


(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.

  This new RFC will update RFC 8410, which is clearly stated on the
  title page and the Abstract.


(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).

  No updates to the IANA registries are needed.


(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.

  No new IANA registries are needed.


(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.

  None are needed.

Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-8410-ku-clarifications-01


(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?

  Proposed Standard.  Yes, the header calls for Standards Track.
 
  This new RFC will update RFC 8410, which is a Proposed Standard.
 

(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:

    This document updates RFC 8410 to clarify existing and specify
    missing semantics for key usage bits when used in certificates
    that support the Ed25519, Ed448, X25519, and X448 Elliptic Curve
    Cryptography algorithms.

  Working Group Summary:

    There is consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.

  Document Quality:

    Discussion around this document as well as the discussion around
    draft-ietf-lamps-5480-ku-clarifications shows that this guidance
    is needed.  Here is an example message in the archive:

    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/mSDS2rOYWoX6jb-d9TmXug3OgPo
   
  Personnel:

    Russ Housley is the document shepherd.
    Roman Danyliw 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 shepherd did a thorough review of the document during
  WG Last Call.  Most of the issues were resolved prior to the
  LAMPS WG adopting the document, and the remaining ones were resolved
  at the end of WG Last Call.


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

  No concerns.


(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.

  Several people that were involved in the PKIX WG did reviews.  The
  PKIX WG was the original source of RFC 2459 (and its successors),
  which specifiy the were part of the key usage bits in the first
  place.


(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.

  No concerns.


(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 authors explicitly confirmed that all IPR disclosures required
  for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
  already been filed.


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

  No IPR disclosures were issued against this document.


(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 is consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.


(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 one has threatened an appeal.


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

  This document, once it is approved, will update RFC 8410.


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

  No special reviews are needed.


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

  Yes, all of them are 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.

  There are no downward normative references.


(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.

  This new RFC will update RFC 8410, which is clearly stated on the
  title page and the Abstract.


(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).

  No updates to the IANA registries are needed.


(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.

  No new IANA registries are needed.


(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.

  None are needed.