Re: [Cfrg] ISE seeks help with some crypto drafts

Ted Krovetz <> Sat, 09 March 2019 21:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6380A12799B for <>; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 13:05:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r1vUjyu2LAB4 for <>; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 13:05:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAF5812797A for <>; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 13:05:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id q81so819140oic.5 for <>; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 13:05:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7W/xifbX4+awDKW6z52frALc2+mXRPFB8CjGXVCs86k=; b=RdsbaZQV/6uH7VTcGFScZTs2OwWA+jqhCGilrtP1I4gg4HjiHV/HqC+XYrYFcpRxfe s8MV8Tax5hvPggvoAvVALj6svHgjPTzwjaX5Vc4lA9/Ug+rk3Qj96hsiSXnVp5PAdx2E 2aqvPYUlX8Q6sMkC/xjRTF1a95jmh9maHAAWtjGLOWdB6EGXA4Ve09VMhAvx8k0cAnvl xrsuME3xMbBXf/hTxvTYcj2JlMdD3/oev8VYeoQ5JouQPct44w3JmwPdzHpJpGieNU+/ V0n3Piy/MTOVvwXdZRuzmrt66UHg2zBmVhIgs8bMGkToJUcAM4jhZjb4UHF740FSMSD0 RA2A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7W/xifbX4+awDKW6z52frALc2+mXRPFB8CjGXVCs86k=; b=s/RdCrev1E1+lyCf1X4in2Hgu8OkZw3yFDpz1EX8L5VMg7WY7p4QUD/hjA0+Pd+H0e hU2Qt2XKK83S+Re1h6BtTVlE6LrEOmRhP1Op6vwadhqfEjylHGaNm4xnlQjAhUtc4enB Hep1lau/ELq9EMUGAPRbHJbbsBV1ES9tr77bPPPBdG/2t9Bo0DiVCLQsoICZX/jTozYz t2eoEHNCdvsQKktm6+4/2P39T0MkY8pyhKqSa7lK/SCKg7xuAjvnksNhxt9blmH7XbLK bGfzD6o8BAPr3ymsYxNrhxS7+N+mPoNdsQ8smHbRDR3LtvsqWwb08Hxr6hflnT5xfrg0 O1VA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUZdQzM9Bu9oaIa1xCVkIzOudz5tMrvgSwBqyzNhaSBhhcsbsc1 JIWYTOg6CzhD9ST1r7LL4tOlZA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzb4CQJzGIQUZFLsrL2o/+ER5XARKdnNf0iLNHk7APcYI56O5Q281CKUn11YIwtSxqvVxH0MQ==
X-Received: by 2002:aca:be88:: with SMTP id o130mr11501748oif.50.1552165549023; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 13:05:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1700:7c70:16a0:7979:a882:df33:e263? ([2600:1700:7c70:16a0:7979:a882:df33:e263]) by with ESMTPSA id w22sm538752oth.45.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 09 Mar 2019 13:05:48 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Ted Krovetz <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 13:05:46 -0800
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: John Mattsson <>, "Salz, Rich" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] ISE seeks help with some crypto drafts
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 21:05:51 -0000

> On Mar 8, 2019, at 4:11 PM, John Mattsson <> wrote:
> Given that CFRG has already published OCB3 in RFC 7253, which was recently included in the CEASAR final portfolio, I would like to see the OCB3 wideblock draft published somewhere. I agree with Rich that it would be better to replace RFC 7523.

> On Mar 8, 2019, at 9:56 AM, Salz, Rich <> wrote:
> I would rather see this rewritten to completely replace 7523 (and include its test vectors of course)  Would review.
> I don't see a compelling need for this, but I am not strongly opposed either.

I would be happy to merge the wideblock modifications into RFC 7253. I was unaware that such changes were allowed for RFCs after publication, but if it is allowed it seems like a sensible approach. I am currently half-way through a busy semester so would not be able to get to it until May though.

As for the RC5/RC6 draft, I introduced it so that I would have a simple example block cipher for generating test vectors of different lengths. If it's not useful as a stand alone RFC, I could fold it into an appendix of a revised RFC 7253 or take suggestions for other applicable block ciphers with stable normative references. A more compact alternative to using a real block cipher for test vectors is to use a toy stand-in such as E(k,x) = x*k over GF(2^n).

Thank you for all of your feedback,