Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04
review-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04-genart-lc-even-2016-04-07-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-04-05
Requested 2016-03-24
Authors Adam Langley , Wan-Teh Chang , Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos , Joachim Strombergson , Simon Josefsson
Draft last updated 2016-04-07
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Roni Even
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Dan Harkins
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Stefan Winter
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Review review-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04-genart-lc-even-2016-04-07
Reviewed revision 04
Result Almost Ready
Completed 2016-04-07
review-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04-genart-lc-even-2016-04-07-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.

Document:

draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2016–3-28

IETF LC End Date: 2016–4-9

IESG Telechat date:



Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track  RFC.







Major issues:

I am wondering why this is a standard track document and not informational
since the registration requirements are specification required.  (RFC5246)



I am also wondering why this document updates RFC5246 and RFC6347.  Reading the
document it looked to me that the registration document is used also to endorse
this cypher suite by the IETF and if this is the case my view is that there
should be two documents, one Informational for registration and the will be
standard track and update RFC5246 and RFC6347

For Example the following text from section 1 “

Therefore, a new stream cipher to replace RC4 and address all the  previous
issues is needed. “  provides what may look as a normative recommendation.





Minor issues:



Nits/editorial comments: