Subject: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-05

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:20:23 -0700

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer 
for this draft (for background on appsdir, please 
see 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document 
shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-05
Title: SHA-2 Data Integrity Verification for the Secure Shell (SSH) Transport
        Layer Protocol

Reviewer: S. Moonesamy
Review Date: April 10, 2012
IETF Last Call Date: April 16, 2012
IESG Telechat Date: April 26, 2012

Summary:  This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.

The draft defines algorithm names and parameters for use of some of 
the SHA-2 family of secure hash algorithms for data integrity 
verification in SSH protocol.  It updates RFC 4253.

Nits:

In the Abstract Section:

   "It also updates RFC4253 by specifying a new RECOMMENDED data
    integrity algorithm."

Should the word "RECOMMENDED" be interpreted as a RFC 2119 key word?

In Section 3:

  "IANA is requested to update the SSH algorithm registry with the
   following entries."

Shouldn't that be the Secure Shell MAC Algorithm Names registry?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:54:58 -0400

On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 17:50 -0700, Mark D. Baushke wrote:
> Yes, the word "RECOMMENDED" given in both the Abstract and in section
> "2. Data Integrity Algorithms" is a RFC 2119 key word as is specified in
> section "1.1. Requirements Terminology" of document
> draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-05.

Technically, the abstract itself does not impose a normative requirement
in the language of RFC2119.  However, the quoted sentence describes
section 2, which does use that language; for clarity, the abstract also
uses uppercase "RECOMMENDED".  IMHO, changing this would serve only to
make the abstract less clear and/or less concise.

> Yes. I was uncertain how to properly address the registry.

No.  It should be the "Secure Shell Protocol Parameters" registry, of
which the MAC Algorithm Names table is one part.  So, if you want to
replace "SSH algorithm registry" with "Secure Shell Protocol
Parameters", that would be a reasonable change, but don't spin a new
internet-draft at this time just for that change.

Aside from that, the terminology used in section 3 is consistent with
that used on the registry web page.  Unless IANA indicates that
something is unclear to them, I would not make any other changes.

-- Jeff

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:15:15 -0700

Hi Mark,

The document shepherd commented on the nits ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04889.html 
).  I consider all the comments as addressed and defer to his judgement.

>draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-05.

It is customary only to use RFC 2119 key words after the definition 
(Section 1.1 in the draft).

>The intent is to properly reference the "Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol
>Parameters" document under the "MAC Algorithm Names" section. This is
>the URL:
>
>http://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters/ssh-parameters.xml#ssh-parameters-18
>
>and the related text format of that document:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/assignments/ssh-parameters/ssh-parameters.txt
>
>to the table to be updated properly with the new MACs.

IANA reviews the IANA Considerations section for any action (see the 
message from Amanda Barber).  That section seems clear enough as IANA 
will be updating the correct registry.

I'll suggest text just in case:

    IANA is requested to update the MAC Algorithm Names registry
    for Secure Shell Protocol Parameters with the following entries:

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Mark D. Baushke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:50:06 -0700

S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> writes:

> I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for
> this draft (for background on appsdir, please see

Please advise any changes needed to the document to make this clearer.

Please advise as to the correct method to reference the IANA registry as
needed for section 3. Should the text in section 3 be rewritten as:

   IANA is requested to update the Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol
   Parameters "MAC Algorithm Names" registry with the following
   entries:

or is some other method of reference needed?

	Thank you,
	-- Mark