IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CFRG] Proposed CFRG process for handling errata

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Sun, 27 December 2020 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 8A1703A0C4C for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 13:36:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
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 cmzr5_1HkpNz for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 13:36:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (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 E54083A0C4A for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 13:36:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050093.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050093.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 0BRLTA0I011643; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 21:36:29 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=bXjIvUYimv1xX4s5+zzfLJ6/lFQf9SkY6l2T34H+5C8=; b=heTYUCt7BUa9u5etYq3kcr+5epxAyezJnTcLAI4xXBfUXYQAwrj79UpA4TqIirS/XLS7 rAZ9YJnPkb7iVLjVyvJYFytbUSuf2On+HoqIJp2/YtJgWUUpkY4jVFp/Z/Z67MhnxZ5h rSAQo/4Pqx9rlBnRVdYMvxZATx+9Ul+LRxwU9eb+QLoPzqC0LmJFGW5KH1bI4mjQVlPH QkOR7BUo3BM3YQvMBFXtvlDfiq/KskHI5wtsf8cwa2H+bmON3xeugnFdJxbw8IKDMPBC YBTzz0k5g7O4Nv3ZQ8rSJZsh6PMk2VLmQpwBvv1h/8Eq0aip79dfjiv1tSwn2h/U1cAz gQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [184.51.33.19] (may be forged)) by m0050093.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 35nwax1k90-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 27 Dec 2020 21:36:29 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 0BRLXjHf001351; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 16:36:28 -0500
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.34]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com with ESMTP id 35p1d2aupw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 27 Dec 2020 16:36:27 -0500
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 16:36:27 -0500
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.010; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 16:36:27 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Mike StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
CC: IRTF CFRG <cfrg@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CFRG] Proposed CFRG process for handling errata
Thread-Index: AQHW2d8yYN4kn5KZc0qvEXOx8NxZ26oI5MwAgALOR4D//8nVgA==
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 21:36:27 +0000
Message-ID: <C3EB8DBD-40B4-4800-8452-80BDA100CF62@akamai.com>
References: <40067f90-ec2c-2a36-f6df-8afa97189cd1@isode.com> <47855176-ce02-07b2-3f78-6f373c6f118d@isode.com> <a822af77-d732-73d8-c2e9-475b1fcbb6c2@nthpermutation.com> <EF008FEE-F053-4595-ADEA-CD2E416B2DEB@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <EF008FEE-F053-4595-ADEA-CD2E416B2DEB@vigilsec.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.44.20121301
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.27.118.139]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C3EB8DBD40B44800845280BDA100CF62akamaicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-27_18:2020-12-24, 2020-12-27 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=896 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012270137
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-27_18:2020-12-24, 2020-12-27 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1011 mlxlogscore=815 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012270137
X-Agari-Authentication-Results: mx.akamai.com; spf=${SPFResult} (sender IP is 184.51.33.19) smtp.mailfrom=rsalz@akamai.com smtp.helo=prod-mail-ppoint2
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/7k6iIL1YOc75AoNgI-DN3kwDGlI>
Subject: Re: [CFRG] Proposed CFRG process for handling errata
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, 27 Dec 2020 21:36:31 -0000

  *   As you say, the CFRG is not like many other RGs.  Crypto algorithm specifications, while informational, ofter become normative references in standards.  For this reason, I think robust handling of errata is desirable.

I agree.  Four other things come to mind:

  *   Much “crypto research” finds its home here (e.g., the pairing stuff most recently), and I think would be less likely if this were an IETF WG.
  *   I also wonder what a WG group with no milestones would be like

  *   There’s no place good IESG home for such a WG
  *   IESG “supervision” (or at least approval) seems like a really bad fit

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status