Re: [CFRG] Please review draft-ietf-drip-rid

Robert Moskowitz <rgm-sec@htt-consult.com> Fri, 17 September 2021 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <rgm-sec@htt-consult.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 E30543A1669 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 14:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 n4-eKI1PJaOc for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 14:20:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [23.123.122.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B2553A1667 for <cfrg@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 14:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DF676250B for <cfrg@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 17:19:07 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at htt-consult.com
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id lSLYWyxpHa5x for <cfrg@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 17:18:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lx140e.htt-consult.com (unknown [192.168.160.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F206623C1 for <cfrg@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 17:18:51 -0400 (EDT)
To: cfrg@ietf.org
References: <03b5ea0e-cf1a-8edf-d642-2fb4b2e458fd@htt-consult.com> <CACsn0ckZbA4=Xe+Lc1w5bc5os8Ekeh9q7AAxknknwrrBZ0R-KQ@mail.gmail.com> <E0D027B0-089E-4402-BD65-38ADEABC3351@ll.mit.edu> <CAEseHRoH941WndaQmL8F=4w6BLkfjCaxa8mKP14bjNUEz2MRfw@mail.gmail.com> <00DA2E69-D80A-4CA7-B744-97B30F237501@ll.mit.edu> <20210917184114.4gnz7g4dl7euf5po@kaon.local> <A3231C7A-6DA6-47A9-96B7-0A90339EFB7F@ll.mit.edu> <47B60608-2C57-4C18-AC07-33ED063B5E1C@vpnc.org>
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm-sec@htt-consult.com>
Message-ID: <201f0844-e1b4-f2d6-86e4-b64bc8bc23dd@htt-consult.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 17:19:51 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <47B60608-2C57-4C18-AC07-33ED063B5E1C@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/4ezk-ceLVBOyrWWbFEONWUqTXvY>
Subject: Re: [CFRG] Please review draft-ietf-drip-rid
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: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 21:20:15 -0000

And just respond to the requested review of what I think is the best I 
can do within the RF constraints and currently available cryptography.

Thank you.

On 9/17/21 4:58 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2021, at 12:10, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote:
>
>> Acceptable as *new* designs? I'm not a spokesman for the US 
>> Government, but I doubt that.
>
> Then you seem to be doubting the NSA FAQ on quantum computing and 
> cryptanalysis. 
> https://media.defense.gov/2021/Aug/04/2002821837/-1/-1/1/Quantum_FAQs_20210804.PDF
>
>> Once NIST PQC publishes its first PQ standards (Jan 2022), we'll see 
>> if recommendations change then.
>
> This assumes that they are "standards", yet NIST has waffled mightily 
> about what the next step will be, particularly about authentication 
> mechanisms.
>
> Maybe we can cut this thread here? If any of us are not a spokesperson 
> for $ZZgovt, we should not immediately follow such statements with 
> suppositions about what $ZZgovt will do. Let's let them do that and 
> then we can respond.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>
> _______________________________________________
> CFRG mailing list
> CFRG@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg