All good thanks,
S.

On 19/02/15 16:23, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 2/19/15 9:55 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Last time this came around I had the comments below.
>> While Barry no longer has a DISCUSS, I'd still be
>> interested in chatting a bit about these. (Apologies
>> that I've not had time to re-read the draft though, so
>> feel free to just tell me these comments are OBE if
>> that's the case.)
>>
>> "
>> - I agree with Bary's discuss - it seems weird to not
>> have the initial registries in hand when the RFC is
>> being issued. People will, I guess, implement from
>> Appendix A here anyway, so why not either delete this
>> and get the registry in place, or else make Appendix A
>> be the initial registry content.
>>    
> 
> OBE. We changed the whole way this was done.
> 
>> 7.7: This uses the empty set, which is puzzling. I think
>> you mean that this set is to be populated by the DE in
>> the IANA registries but if so, saying so would be good.
>>    
> 
> OBE. Section changed to make this clear.
> 
>> 10.5: This says that a) its all too hard but also b)
>> "Nevertheless, specifications for application protocols
>> that use this framework MUST describe how confusable
>> characters can be abused to compromise the security of
>> systems that use the protocol in question, along with any
>> protocol-specific suggestions for overcoming those
>> threats." That seems like a 6919 MUST (but we know you
>> won't) to me. Is that a good plan?
>>    
> 
> Changed "MUST" to "are strongly encouraged to"
> 
>> 10.6: Prompted by the secdir review, it might be worth a
>> few words on password hashing, which is very common.  E.g.
>> say that the canonical form is input to hashing and
>> therefore just can't be mucked about with. (But say that
>> nicely:-)
>>    
> 
> Added:
> 
>    In protocols that provide passwords as input to a cryptographic
>    algorithm such as a hash function, the client will need to perform
>    proper preparation of the password before applying the algorithm,
>    since the password is not available to the server in plaintext form.
> 
> I hope that addresses everything.
> 
> pr
> 

_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis

Reply via email to