Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-safecurves-05: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-safecurves/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Wouldn't it be good to encourage minimising re-use of public values for multiple key exchanges? As-is, the text sort-of encourages use for "many key exchanges" in section 4. - Sorry if I'm forgetting how we handle this in IPsec, but is an implementation of this RFC expected to support both curves? I think it'd be ok to say that 25519 is a MUST for folks doing, this but that 448 is optional. I'm also fine if we mean that implementing this means you have to support both btw but you don't say (here) that that's the case. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
