Last Call Review of draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-04
review-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-04-genart-lc-miller-2016-12-16-01

Request Review of draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-12-16
Requested 2016-12-02
Draft last updated 2017-03-06
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Niclas Comstedt (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Matthew Miller (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -05 by Niclas Comstedt (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Matthew Miller (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Matthew Miller
State Completed
Review review-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-04-genart-lc-miller-2016-12-16
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2017-03-06

Review
review-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-04-genart-lc-miller-2016-12-16

[ re-posting to get it onto the mailing list archives; some bugs prevented it the first time ]

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

< http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq >.

Document: draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-04
Reviewer: Matthew A. Miller
Review Date: 2016-12-16
IETF LC End Date: 2016-12-16
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary:

Ready to be published as a Proposed Standards document.

Major issues:  NONE

Minor issues:  NONE

Nits/editorial comments:  NONE

Non-issues:

Nits is reporting a downref to RFC 7539 (ChaCha20 and Poly1035).
However it is standard practice for cryptographic algorithm
documents to be Informational rather than Standards Track,
therefore I don't think there's a real concern here.

Nits is also reporting downrefs for X680 and X690, but I believe
these are acceptable as they define ASN.1.