Hi Sheng,
Thanks for the comment and the suggestion. I agree that it may sound strange to have a standard Track category without any reference to RFC2119. In addition, while the document provides IANA registry updates, the IANA registration does not require a Standard Track. So *technically* the informational category could be fine.
The motivation for a Standard Track document was to have these algorithms as part of the SSH protocol. In other words, we expect that SSH will come with these algorithms in the future. For that reason we requested the status to be "Standard Track" to remain coherent with RFC425{1-4}.
(RFC4250 and) RFC4253 provided the initial values for the Public Key registry. While the protocol comes with some registry values, my understanding is that updating the registry by adding a new value is not considered as an update the RFC. For that reason we did not provide RFC4253 or RFC4250 in the update status. While the update does not concern the RFC, it affects the protocol and should - in my opinion be associated to the same status as the protocol.
As a side note, all RFCs that have updated the Public Key Algorithm Names are Standard Track documents. On the other hand, they seem to reference and use the RFC2119 terms.
I believe that the Standard Track category is the most appropriated, however, I am happy to be wrong and have misunderstood something. Feel free to let me know your opinion on the category, as well as if there are any clarification we should add in the text. I suggest that we add a sentence around the lines:
""" These signature algorithms are expected to be integrated into the standard implementations of SSH. """
Any feed back is welcome!
Yours,
Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 5:02 AM
To: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx
Cc: draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448.all@xxxxxxxx; curdle@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448-07
Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
Review result: Has Issues
Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
Review result: Has Issues
Hi, OPS-DIR, Authors,
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
This standard track document describes the use of the Ed25519 and Ed448 digital signature algorithm in the Secure Shell (SSH) protocol. This document is one of the shortest documents I have ever seen. It is clear and well written.
However, I have a fundamental issue regarding to its Intended status "Standards Track", describe below. Therefore, it has issues for publication although I think it is easy to fixed - changing the Intended status.
Major issue: this document has Intended status for Standards Track. However, neither this document fails to quota RFC 2119 or has any normative words.
Consistently, I don't think the description in this document has any mandatory requirements for any implementations of protocols. Actually, the most important quota of this document, RFC8032, is Informational, which is a Downref in this document. Therefore, I think it is more proper this document intends for Informational status.
Minor issue: no.
Regards,
Sheng
