Re: [Cfrg] Adoption of draft-ladd-spake2 as a RG document

[Watson Ladd <[e-mail]>]

My apologies for the truncated reply.

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Watson Ladd <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Rene Struik <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Dear Alexey:
>>
>> I am unhappy with this draft. Besides, I do not understand at all why the
>> CFRG co-Chairs choose to take this step (call for adoption of this draft, at
>> this specific moment in time) right now. What triggered this? This seems to
>> be a random move, at a random moment in time.

This is option 2, correct? You don't think we need another PAKE, at
all. Or is this Option 3: you think it is too immature to adopt as a
work item today?

This is in accordance with a previous plan, once it became clear that
there was a shortage of PAKE proposals that could be used with ECC and
that had security analyses. Dragonfly has been contentious precisely
because of it's 1990's style design: a heuristic modification to avoid
certain attacks The hope is that by using an already published design,
we will have a more secure protocol.

Sincerely,
Watson Ladd

>
>>
>> I think it would be good if the CFRG leadership could explain its thinking.
>>
>> Best regards, Rene
>>
>> Charter
>>
>> The Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG) is a general forum for discussing and
>> reviewing uses of cryptographic mechanisms, both for network security in
>> general and for the IETF in particular.
>>
>> The CFRG serves as a bridge between theory and practice, bringing new
>> cryptographic techniques to the Internet community and promoting an
>> understanding of the use and applicability of these mechanisms via
>> Informational RFCs (in the tradition of, e.g., RFC 1321 (MD5) and RFC 2104
>> (HMAC). Our goal is to provide a forum for discussing and analyzing general
>> cryptographic aspects of security protocols, and to offer guidance on the
>> use of emerging mechanisms and new uses of existing mechanisms. IETF working
>> groups developing protocols that include cryptographic elements are welcome
>> to bring questions concerning the protocols to the CFRG for advice.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rene
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/14/2014 11:41 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> This message starts 3 weeks adoption call for draft-ladd-spake2. Please
>> reply to this message or directly to CFRG chairs, stating one of the
>> following
>>
>> 1) that you are happy to adopt the draft as a starting point
>> 2) that you are not happy to adopt this draft
>> or
>> 3) that you think the document needs more work before the RG should consider
>> adopting it
>>
>> While detailed document reviews are generally welcome, this not a call to
>> provide detailed comments on the document.
>>
>> Alexey,
>> On bahalf of CFRG chairs.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cfrg mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> email: [e-mail] | Skype: rstruik
>> cell: [phone] | US: [phone]
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cfrg mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
> Temporary Safety deserve neither  Liberty nor Safety."
> -- Benjamin Franklin



-- 
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither  Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin