Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07
review-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07-opsdir-lc-jiang-2019-01-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2019-01-04
Requested 2018-12-21
Authors Ben Harris , Loganaden Velvindron
I-D last updated 2019-01-02
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Sheng Jiang
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448 by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 11)
Result Has issues
Completed 2019-01-02
review-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07-opsdir-lc-jiang-2019-01-02-00
Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
Review result: Has Issues

Hi, OPS-DIR, Authors,

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.

This standard track document describes the use of the Ed25519 and Ed448 digital
signature algorithm in the Secure Shell (SSH) protocol.  This document is one
of the shortest documents I have ever seen. It is clear and well written.
However, I have a fundamental issue regarding to its Intended status "Standards
Track", describe below. Therefore, it has issues for publication although I
think it is easy to fixed - changing the Intended status.

Major issue: this document has Intended status for Standards Track. However,
neither this document fails to quota RFC 2119 or has any normative words.
Consistently, I don't think the description in this document has any mandatory
requirements for any implementations of protocols. Actually, the most important
quota of this document, RFC8032, is Informational, which is a Downref in this
document. Therefore, I think it is more proper this document intends for
Informational status.

Minor issue: no.

Regards,

Sheng