Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXT] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc-08: (with COMMENT)

From: "Birrane, Edward J." <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2021 15:23:11 +0000

Roman,

  Thank you for the review and comments for this document.

  I believe that the upcoming -09 version of this document will appropriately respond to the existing DISCUSSes and COMMENTs that you reference, to include the comment from both you and Benjamin Kaduk relating to referencing section 8.3 of [AES-GCM] and the 2^32 invocation limit.

-Ed

---
Edward J. Birrane, III, Ph.D. (he/him/his)
Embedded Applications Group Supervisor
Space Exploration Sector
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
(W) 443-778-7423 / (F) 443-228-3839

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 4:12 PM
> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [EXT] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-
> default-sc-08: (with COMMENT)
> 
> APL external email warning: Verify sender [email-masked] before clicking
> links or attachments
> 
> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc-08: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you to Christian Huitema for the SECDIR review.
> 
> I support the DISCUSS positions of Martin Duke, Francesca Palombini and
> Benjamin Kaduk whose substantive positions have already noted what
> would have been my feedback.
> 
> ** Section 4.5.  Per “The total number of bytes processed with a single key
> for AES-GCM is recommended to be less than 2^64, as described in Appendix
> B of [AES-GCM].”  It would also be worth nothing that in additional to the
> number of process bytes, that there is a limit of 2^32 of invocations with the
> same key per Section 8.3 of [AES-GCM].
> 
>