On 11/28/22 12:41, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
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-moskowitz-ipsecme-ipseckey-eddsa-06
Reviewer: Behcet Sarikaya
Review Date: 2022-11-28
IETF LC End Date:2022-12-12
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: Ready with nits. It will be nice to explain why these IANA
Registry additions for EdDSA Public Keys to the IPSECKEY not done with
RFC 8080 which defined it in Feb. 2017.
8080 is for DNSSEC. OK. But this is for other uses. Now those that
use the IPSECKEY RR are ready to use EdDSA, so could of, would of,
should of. It was not done, now it is. RFC numbers are relatively
cheap. Explain what? That 8080 was only for DNSSEC RR and this is for
IPSECKEY RR? Why? Leave it alone.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits/editorial comments:
Appendix A
please add an IPv6 example. RFC 4025 does have some.
Yes, 4025 defines all the gateway use cases, so has gateway RR examples
with only ONE public key format.
This draft is to add EdDSA as a public key format and gives the example
of what that key looks like in the IPSECKEY RR. Any reader that wants
the gateway use case will use 4025 for those examples. I do not see
where cluttering up this document with use cases already covered in 4025
adds value/clarity.
So I respectfully state that I prefer to leave all the gateway examples
out of this document.
Bob
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
