Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-12
review-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-12-secdir-lc-wouters-2018-06-11-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 14) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2018-06-12 | |
| Requested | 2018-05-29 | |
| Authors | John R. Levine | |
| Draft last updated | 2018-06-11 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -12
by
Paul Wouters
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Pete Resnick (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Paul Wouters |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-12-secdir-lc-wouters-2018-06-11
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 12 (document currently at 14) | |
| Result | Has Nits | |
| Completed | 2018-06-11 |
review-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-12-secdir-lc-wouters-2018-06-11-00
NITS:
I believe the [FIPS-180-4-2015] reference should be replaced with a reference
to RFC-6376
Remove or indicate the RFC Editor should remove the following text:
Discussion Venue: Discussion about this draft is directed to the
dcrup@ietf.org [1] mailing list.
This sentence doesn't parse easily:
This is an additional DKIM signature algorithm added to Section 3.3
of [RFC6376] as envisioned in Section 3.3.4 of [RFC6376].
It should simply say something like "This document adds an additional key
algorithm type to the DKIM Key Type Registry and a new signature type to the
DKIM Hash Algorithms Registry"
This text reads a little odd:
Ed25519 is a widely used cryptographic technique, so the security of
DKIM signatures using new signing algorithms should be at least as
good as those using old algorithms.
It seems to suggest that being "widely used" is a guarantee for being "at least
as good as older stuff". Better would be to just point to the Security
Considerations of RFC 8032
Section 4 and 8 have an introductory lines that says "update as follows"
followed by a dot instead of a colon. That is a little confusing to the reader,
as if some text is missing before the dot.