Sean, I am OK with the changes. I am not familiar with the right terms in this field however, masquerades sound to me as only one of the possible things that can be done by the person that gets the private key. They can also have access to encrypted material for example. Anyway if you think that masquerades is the right term in this field then I am OK with it.
-Avshalom From: Sean Turner <[email protected]> To: Avshalom Houri/Haifa/i...@ibmil Cc: General Area Review Team <[email protected]>, [email protected], Tim Polk <[email protected]> Date: 14/01/2010 04:33 PM Subject: Re: Gen Art LC review of: draft-turner-ecprivatekey-02.txt Avashalom, Thanks for the review. Responses below. spt Avshalom Houri wrote: > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see _ > __http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_). > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-turner-ecprivatekey-02.txt > Reviewer: Avshalom Houri > Review Date: 2010-01-14 > IETF LC End Date: 2010-01-14 > IESG Telechat date: (if known) > > Summary: The draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC. See > nits. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Lines 142-145 > As specified in [RFC5480], only the namedCurve > CHOICE, which is an object identifier that fully identifies the > required values for a particular set of elliptic curve domain > parameters, is permitted. > > Sentence is hard to read. How about: As specified in [RFC5480], only the namedCurve CHOICE is permitted. namedCurve is an object identifier that fully identifies the required values for a particular set of elliptic curve domain parameters. > Lines 145-146 > Though the ASN.1 indicates parameters is OPTIONAL, > -> Though the ASN.1 indicates that the parameter parameters is OPTIONAL, How about: Though the ASN.1 indicates that the parameters field is OPTIONAL, > Line 196 > masquerades > > -> Not sure that this is the right term. Probably identity-theft or > similar should be used. Masquerade is a generic term that covers one entity pretending to be another entity. Identity-theft to me is a little too specific to signature keys that I think might not entirely fit this because EC keys aren't just used for identity. Disclosure of the private key is pretty catastrophic so maybe I should just list more things that could happen: Disclosure of the private-key material to another entity can lead to active and passive attacks including: masquerade, unauthorized disclosure, and unauthorized modification.
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
