IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 29 October 2019 06:33 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF751200B8; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 23:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id be7ao2JW0xAZ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 23:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 762EA120048; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 23:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8235; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1572330810; x=1573540410; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=E3hCIsvtt3jec9PGtC3hq/RSsvQtcDHTTJF945Jer/0=; b=ZNDrDsehR/VT9WIZg1YUeJ3pXo9SFQT8FkwcOKcd4Kck9xqdnhwEyYvy /jiAHZaSQ5z0+jb6+tBTEvNUfKXi2SOEpo/hu2iOJr1QQcTWJpUAfj+59 6hr26Gdj3USDxdoxu08pF8BipL3R7QaqZmpa8agI3ZOvjeO2rLs51jUeK Q=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CcAAD03Ldd/xbLJq1lDgsBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAREBAQEBAQEBAQEBAYF7gRyCRAEgEiqNK4duJYcyi1iICgIHAQEBCQMBAS8BAYRAAoNwOBMCAwkBAQQBAQECAQUEbYVDhVEBAQEDAXkFCwsYIwtXBhODIgGCVyCwGYInhU6EcBCBNoFTilSBf4E4DBOCTD6IB4IsBJY2lzKCLoIzgRORaBuOHIs+pHGDFgIEBgUCFYFpIiqBLjMaCBsVZQGCQT4SEBSDPo1TPEADMJAbAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,243,1569283200"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="18559777"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 29 Oct 2019 06:33:01 +0000
Received: from [10.61.202.222] ([10.61.202.222]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x9T6X0ub019867 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Oct 2019 06:33:00 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <521DE6A8-0839-4D52-AB9F-7F6717AFA5DB@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1DFD681E-0CD9-49F4-8762-4E0A340016F8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 07:32:59 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20191029031843.GO69013@kduck.mit.edu>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra@ietf.org, tte+ietf@cs.fau.de, anima-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, anima@ietf.org
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
References: <157132132983.10248.1050846253932775557.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20191018012352.GB43312@kduck.mit.edu> <22000.1572299410@localhost> <20191029031843.GO69013@kduck.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.202.222, [10.61.202.222]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/4HoJUoIIFSj_O6cq0emlvyqZZGI>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 06:33:32 -0000

Hi,

> On 29 Oct 2019, at 04:18, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> I mean, we literally say "Reducing the possibility of this is why the
> pledge is mandated to generate a strong random or pseudo-random number
> nonce."  So to also say "the nonce [...] does not require a strong
> cryptographic randomness" seems to be in conflict with the former
> statement.
> Are you saying that "strong random" and "strong cryptographic random" mean
> different things, or am I misreading the document in some other way?


I would just drop the statement.  The whole point of the nonce is to prevent replay attacks, so why would we want to weaken that?

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email