IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-cfrg-randomness-improvements-08.txt

"Riad S. Wahby" <rsw@jfet.org> Sun, 24 November 2019 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <rswatjfet.org@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA4812004C for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 13:37:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.404
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.404 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.244, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 N6KpXwsFX7xR for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 13:37:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-f169.google.com (mail-pg1-f169.google.com [209.85.215.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7E9B12003E for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 13:37:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-f169.google.com with SMTP id k1so6010362pgg.12 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 13:37:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=QNKsr+rrfglJZenQewzfQRpS6TQXNJQ7WF4nmllhd9o=; b=mxPd2nf/JEG4GqrAe7m3BHovUrmj1vNQo22avm//IFmQET9jrnW5DFl1v4IfrTlWOK fVybn216SVCKQ3iKWlmGNGc85kEsgcaAfKsB/66jE//A+I8JnxS0gZBJZPe4GZallVDG QSNZx+7VK4ZLSdrWz6x+yV5I4bb9splv/QpTbxrf/+0F4IEEb/hmSCbhK7F2UC/loRE5 hfuZm9p9QOBKD3+cqD/lvtnH75Wttz7QoJsnaTf0Dbp7yh6CHifOT6grCyBS5crP8PHh RKx70KST4BZsy3oNTBPsFrU4aaC/+D04Boo8Eu37+8FxiMG5xo/kzU7JA2fXMi65DA4s XnJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUlFw9dsZ2cZUlc6LHGjuLeFg4wCqJIUwXLe42xHqxGL7TvQnk2 woFZS7TtP4Vwpnqlnm21K/0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw3H7LVSk3Q1anDirYRNZSA5BKDNbllURuIzlBqJ61VD78baTklnl+LM/Og62RGqJtjzet7VQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:68ce:: with SMTP id k14mr21787276pgt.374.1574631440263; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 13:37:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (positron.stanford.edu. [171.67.76.114]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c6sm5541316pfj.59.2019.11.24.13.37.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sun, 24 Nov 2019 13:37:18 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 13:37:17 -0800
From: "Riad S. Wahby" <rsw@jfet.org>
To: "Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <smyshsv@gmail.com>
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <20191124213717.o5gjtyv55lmlcy4s@positron.jfet.org>
References: <157273808364.6043.6715638492611593951@ietfa.amsl.com> <77AD232C-094D-4FC1-A966-DA56EC44A27F@ericsson.com> <CAMr0u6=7r2wAD_3Yn1hBjJW-y=8FE27jeYQW8wk3wJ-Xh2g2hg@mail.gmail.com> <20191122162758.kzx3vl4ibayykyqu@positron.jfet.org> <CAMr0u6=94uCjUybJ89Nf-qNvyKFPkX_KWM6k5u1kPUZMOCLNRw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMr0u6=94uCjUybJ89Nf-qNvyKFPkX_KWM6k5u1kPUZMOCLNRw@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/18NGqNIAasIhYank6iX-3TP7uNw>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-cfrg-randomness-improvements-08.txt
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 21:37:22 -0000

"Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <smyshsv@gmail.com> wrote:
> But this makes the scope of the I-D (initially motivated by TLS servers)
> wider - a "menu of choices" of good solutions instead of one good solution.
> If we want to do this, then, as it seems to me, the current process with an
> I-D, which has already passed the RGLC and has moved to Waiting for
> Document Shepherd stage, should be stopped and returned to the previous
> stage of a work item before RGLC.

In this case, it seems like a separate document for other constructions
is definitely more appropriate---no sense introducing serious delay for
this document.

But: would it be possible to clarify, maybe just in the intro, that this
document is primarily geared toward the HSM case?

-=rsw

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email