Subject: [Dcrup] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:07:36 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-13: No Objection

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-dcrup-dkim-crypto/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 7.  Security Considerations
"Ed25519 is a widely used cryptographic technique, so the security of DKIM
signatures using new signing algorithms should be at least as good as those
using old algorithms."

Could this be reworded? This might just be a pet peeve, but as it is written,
it is, I believe, false[0].

This says that, because lots of people use something, it must be good / secure.
That's like saying that because lots of people drink instant coffee it must be
at least as good as real coffee.  Adding something like "and has received lots
of review from the cryptographic community", or "doesn't seem to have any
weaknesses", or something would help. Oh, the Change Log "11 to 12" entry wins!
W

[0]: I bought a box of commas on sale this weekend.

---

From: "John R. Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Jun 2018 18:26:47 -0400

> it is, I believe, false[0].

Fixed in my latest version which I will post once I'm sure there's really 
really really nothing more to change, just says to look at 8032.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 18:37:05 -0400

Cool, thanks!

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf