Subject: [Curdle] Comments on draft-ietf-curdle-dnskey-ed25519 and draft-ietf-curdle-dnskey-ed448

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 16:09:13 -0700

Greetings. This draft is pretty good, but it muddles some of the 
reasoning for using EdDSA and X25519. Compare this to the two other 
non-SSH WG drafts, draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-newcurves and 
draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-eddsa, which don't try to restate the crypto 
advantages of the curves and signature scheme but rely instead on the 
already-clear descriptions in the CFRG documents.

I propose that draft-ietf-curdle-dnskey-ed25519 and 
draft-ietf-curdle-dnskey-ed448 would be fine with replacing the 
paragraphs describing the advantages of the new curves and signatures 
schemes with a reference to [RFC774] in addition to the existing 
reference to [I-D.irtf-cfrg-eddsa]. This way, the two sets of WG 
documents are parallel in their brevity and pointing to the base 
documents.

I also have a preference to roll draft-ietf-curdle-dnskey-ed448 into 
draft-ietf-curdle-dnskey-ed25519, similar to the way that Simon did for 
his drafts, but if the WG really wants two separate but highly-redundant 
documents, that's fine too.

--Paul Hoffman