Subject: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-06

From: Shawn Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 00:30:19 -0600

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security
area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
comments just like any other last call comments.

This draft specifies ASN.1 structures, consisting of algorithm identifiers,
parameters, public, private keys, and signatures, for Curve25519 and
Curve448 curves.

The security considerations section does exist and refers to RFC 5280
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280>, 7748
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7748>, and 8032
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8032> for relevancy.  The section adds that
the same public key can not be used for ECDH and EdDSA.  I don't see how
this specifically relates to the ASN specification for Curve25519 and
Curve448, but since these are two procedures related to this draft, I can
see why this paragraph may exist.

General comments:

None.

Editorial comments:

For the public key field the document specifies:

subjectPublicKey BIT STRING

Shouldn't this be OCTET STRING?  The same for signatureValue.

s/algorithms need have/algorithms need to have/
s/cross-implementation naming this/cross-implementation naming, this/

OLD

   Asymmetric Key Packages [RFC5958
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5958>] describes how encode a private
key
   in a structure that both identifies what algorithm the private key is
   for, but allows for the public key and additional attributes about

       the key to be included as well.

NEW

   Asymmetric Key Packages [RFC5958
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5958>] describes how to encode a
private key
   in a structure that both identifies what algorithm the private key is
   for, but allows for the public key and additional attributes of

       the key to be included as well.

Shawn.
--

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 14:52:37 -0400

> Shouldn't this be OCTET STRING?  The same for signatureValue.

It is a BIT STRING; see RFC 5280.

Russ