Re: Call for Review on draft-kanno-secsh-camellia-00

[Satoru Kanno <kanno.satoru%po.ntts.co.jp@localhost>]

(2010/04/26 19:23), Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Satoru Kanno<kanno.satoru%po.ntts.co.jp@localhost>  writes:
>
> > Dear List,
> >
> > We have submitted draft of Camellia for secure shell as an individual
> > draft, because we found the Camellia patch for OpenSSH.
> >
> > Camellia draft:
> >   http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kanno-secsh-camellia-00.txt
> > Camellia patch:
> >   https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1340
> >
> > Comments about our document would be welcome.

Dear Simon,

First of all, I'm sorry for the delayed reply.
And, thanks for your comments.

> Thanks for writing the document.  My comments:
>
> 1) As you know, Camellia is patented by your organization, and you need
> to file a patent disclosure to the IETF.  The earlier disclosures
> related to Camellia are not relevant: they don't permit use for Secure
> Shell.

Now, we are preparing Camellia IPR for Secure Shell. The IPR style is 
similar to Kerberos.

> 2) It is not possible to implement your document without also reading
> RFC 5646, thus I believe that document has to be a normative reference.
> Alternatively, you could duplicate the necessary text.

OK. I will move the document for GCM mode from informative reference to 
normative reference. I will revise your comment to the next draft.

By the way, I'd like to confirm your pointed RFC, I think that RFC 5646 
is typo. Is RFC 5647 right?

 -- RFC5646: Tags for Identifying Languages
 -- RFC5647: AES Galois Counter Mode for the Secure Shell Transport
             Layer Protocol

Best regards,
Satoru

> /Simon


--
Satoru Kanno

Security Business Unit
Mobile and Security Solution Business Group
NTT Software Corporation

e-mail: kanno.satoru%po.ntts.co.jp@localhost