Subject: [IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-safecurves?

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 11:13:58 +0100

There have been no additional comment on the list, and we have had one
positive review from an implementer [1].  Is there any reason to wait
further with WG last calling this document?  Its dependency on
draft-irtf-cfrg-curves is in the RFC editors queue already.

Thanks,
/Simon

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/vS1sy2ROhA6twEe7QwX1ISXtLVM

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:45:35 +0200

> On 12 Nov 2015, at 12:13 PM, Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

OK, so here’s two comments:
 1. See Ilari’s pr for RFC4492bis [2]. Do we want similar name changes?
 2. We make no mention of EdDSA signatures. I know they should just work with RFC 7427, but do we want to mention them and give the OIDs?

Yoav

[2] https://github.com/tlswg/rfc4492bis/pull/16

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:59:35 +0100

> OK, so here’s two comments:

Thank you!

>  1. See Ilari’s pr for RFC4492bis [2]. Do we want similar name

We could use a similar change when we talk about key agreement
explicitly.  When talking about the curves the traditional names are
fine.

>  2. We make no mention of EdDSA signatures. I know they should just
> work with RFC 7427, but do we want to mention them and give the OIDs?

Support for EdDSA might be a completely different draft.  I'm not
convinced RFC 7427 plus an OID is sufficient to get EdDSA to work in an
interoperable manner.  Is there interest from the WG in pursuing EdDSA
signing in IPSEC?  If so we could add it to this draft or write a new
one.

/Simon

> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec