Subject: [Cfrg] comments on draft-nir-cfrg-rfc7539bis-03

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:18:20 -0500

While performing IESG conflict review for
draft-nir-cfrg-rfc7539bis-03, I noticed that in section 2.3.1, the
pseudocode's definition of chacha20_block() differs from RFC 7539 by
using the 'initial_state' variable in two places, leaving the
invocation "inner_block(working_state)" to refer to the
'working_state', which does not appear to be defined/initialized
anywhere.  Upon cursory examination, it seems that the intent was to
have inner_block() apply to the variable 'state' instead of
'working_state'.

I will also note without prejudice that the RFC 8174 boilerplate is
available, to clarify that non-capitalized forms of the keywords are
non-normative.

-Ben (with no hats)

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 21:31:24 +0300

Good catch. Thanks for that.

So like it said in one of the errata ([1]) my pseudo-code again doesn’t pseudo-compile.

I’ve fixed it in my working copy.

Alexey: What do you think about switching to the RFC 8174 boilerplate?  I checked and the draft never uses lower-case must (except in boilerplate), but does use should and may in a non-normative sense.

Yoav

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4372 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4372>

> On 28 Mar 2018, at 19:18, Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:37:19 +0100

> I’ve fixed it in my working copy.

Great.

> Alexey: What do you think about switching to the RFC 8174 boilerplate? 
>  I checked and the draft never uses lower-case must (except in 
> boilerplate), but does use should and may in a non-normative sense.

Then you probably want to use RFC 8174 boilerplate.
>
> Yoav
>
> [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4372
>
>
>> On 28 Mar 2018, at 19:18, Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked] 
>> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:23:09 -0500

> I’ve fixed it in my working copy.

Great, thanks!

-Ben