Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-eddsa-04
review-ietf-ipsecme-eddsa-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2017-11-17-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-eddsa
Requested rev. no specific revision
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-12-04
Requested 2017-11-12
Other Reviews Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Adam Montville
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Joel Jaeggli
Review State Completed
Reviewer Christer Holmberg
Review review-ietf-ipsecme-eddsa-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2017-11-17
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/18tBjFLHZBjR3SrkpyHko-pncAo
Reviewed rev. 04
Review result Ready with Nits
Draft last updated 2017-11-17
Review completed: 2017-11-17

Review
review-ietf-ipsecme-eddsa-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2017-11-17

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-eddsa-04
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 2017-11-17
IETF LC End Date: 2017-12-04
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. However, I have some editorial change suggestions that I think would improve the readability of the document.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: 

Q1:
---- 

In the Abstract the text says " Edwards-curve digital signature algorithm", without the EdDSA abbreviation, and in the Introduction the text says "EdDSA" without the enhancement.

I suggest to say "Edwards-curve digital signature algorithm (EdDSA)" in the first occurrences within the Abstract and the Introduction.

Q2:
----

In the Introduction the text says "The latter RFC" and "that document". I suggest to explicitly use the RFC numbers instead.

That makes it easier to read, and there is always a theoretical change that someone files an errata, or update the text within another RFC, that changes the order to the RFCs so that "The latter" etc points to the wrong RFC...

Q3:
----

In the Introduction the text says:

   "EdDSA defines the binary format of the signatures that should be used
   in the "Signature Value" field of the Authentication Data Format in
   section 3."

Section 3 of what? I assume you refer section 3 of RFC 8032, so I suggest to explicitly say that. Otherwise someone (at least I did) may jump to section 3 of the draft and start looking.

The same thing applies to "Appendix A". Please indicate the RFC number.

Q4:
----

In the Introduction the text says:

"we define a new value"

I suggest to say "this document defines a new value".

Or, you could even say "section 2 of this document defines a new value".

Q5:
----

In section 3, I suggest to add a reference (URL?) to the hash algorithm registry.