Re: [Cfrg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-cfrg-dragonfly-03.txt

[David McGrew <[e-mail]>]

On 02/03/2014 02:47 PM, Watson Ladd wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 3, 2014 11:27 AM, "Dan Harkins" <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >   Hello,
> >
> >   I updated the dragonfly draft to incorporate the comments received
> > from Rene and Scott. Please take a look.
> >
>
> It still doesn't compare favorably to JPAKE or SPAKE2. TLS has shown 
> less then zero interest in it. No reduction or evidence for claims 
> made is forthcoming. The draft excludes curves with uniform hashing to 
> points.
>
> Why is this specific PAKE a work item and not the other alternatives?
>

You mean like draft-irtf-cfrg-augpake-00?

Drafts are taken up when someone is willing to write one, and there are 
sufficiently many other people that are interested.

> Was this a joke for groundhog day?
>

The sarcasm is not helpful.  Let's stick to a technical discussion.

This draft most certainly should be reviewed, since security concerns 
were raised regarding earlier versions of the draft, especially 
regarding implementation guidance and timing channels.

The process by which CFRG drafts can become RFCs is described in 
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5743#section-2.1   Note that there is 
a paragraph in the RFC that describes the relationship of that work to 
the research group.    This mechanism enables the sentiment of the RG to 
be captured in the RFC.

Let me ask: can you suggest text for the security considerations section 
of this draft that captures your concerns regarding the lack of 
reduction and uniform hashing?

David