Telechat Review of draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-05
review-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-05-opsdir-telechat-comstedt-2017-01-18-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
| Type | Telechat Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2017-01-17 | |
| Requested | 2017-01-06 | |
| Authors | Russ Housley | |
| I-D last updated | 2017-01-18 | |
| Completed reviews |
Opsdir Last Call review of -04
by Niclas Comstedt
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Matthew A. 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 A. Miller (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Niclas Comstedt |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305 by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 06) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2017-01-18 |
review-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-05-opsdir-telechat-comstedt-2017-01-18-00
Hi, I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Document reviewed: draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-05 Background: I reviewed 04 and found only minor nits. Summary: Minor nit and incorrect reference - Section 3, still need the 2nd must to all capitals in the following sentence "The AlgorithmIdentifier parameters field MUST be present, and the parameters field must contain a AEADChaCha20Poly1305Nonce:” - Section 6. First paragraph references RFC7534 as if its the same as [FORIETF]. I think the RFC is a typo (and that actual RFC is unrelated). So either needs the corrected RFC or remove that and keep referencing only [FORIETF]. /nco