On Mon, 8 Apr 2019, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Peter, thanks for your review. I entered a Yes ballot and pointed to your review.
Indeed, thanks for the review Peter! I've incorporated all of your suggestions, with the exception of:
Page 4, Section 1.3: In general, it would be nice if there were references in the paragraphs following the table that point to the research that led to the statements of strength or lack of strength of the algorithms. Then again, this isn't an academic paper, so references aren't strictly required either. While I mostly (but not completely) agree with the notes on the individual algorithms, the average reader is left to take the statements as gospel rather than being able to make an informed decision on the current state of cryptography.
We did not want to add these to the document, in an attempt to keep the document short and on topic.
Page 5, 8th paragraph, 1st sentence: change "ED25519" to "Ed25519". Change "ED448" to "Ed448". Only make these two changes if you are referring to these algorithms by the names given to them by their authors as opposed to the mnemonics used within DNSSEC. (This statement also applies to the Ed25519 comment below.) Insert "the" before "Edwards".
We are using the mnemonics, so I left these as is.
Page 5, 8th paragraph, 4th sentence: change "ED25519" to "Ed25519".
Same,
Page 6, Section 3.3, 3rd paragraph, 1st fragment: change "for" to "regarding". Append "are summarized in the table below." to the fragment.
I did not understand this change request? Paul
