Re: [CFRG] [irsg] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-irtf-cfrg-spake2-23: (with COMMENT)
Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Thu, 25 November 2021 23:19 UTC
Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 000123A0BB7; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 15:19:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=csperkins.org
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 2L3MGlsAs9r2; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 15:19:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (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 F15903A0BB3; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 15:19:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=csperkins.org; s=mythic-beasts-k1; h=To:Date:Subject:From; bh=UMqpSPBsCIN5yHXgJtFuaHSHvXslCpA9cUAG7iR4glo=; b=nnWU9vIdLvSPSfHcS1t76YGvbg xSPThIoFCzIV8fqbC9AQ7a3BWXs3p46D6Q8KR3UjUtmINL5gVMu2W6h5aRCRxfhGcSl+8PaKAo3pR iq7YTiobWZKjFg1sIWHZXYK6K6FSVucOKIaAffH0zBHdWO71YYDXXMPd4M6iN1igJwq/mZ3eXSMNW EVfLr1yx9HYIKocrqwCAnVqJsDGTvXFqCurzNfi/Vc8Kq62GCos5lp5kHkkjJ9Ex/0XG+oDXOBwKo Nw6fxvzkjs1DbV5zCdby42a41AH58pJ0LbpqbUlC9+1U1R8ufMf2unKRANyr68pQ3vhtwg2E9Xoog FRt/L86A==;
Received: from [81.187.2.149] (port=36972 helo=[192.168.0.67]) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1mqO1E-00058m-9y; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 23:19:08 +0000
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Message-Id: <EEA10055-2462-4582-B63E-40DDBB57DF03@csperkins.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6A557708-3254-414D-A28D-AF5A302C7755"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 23:18:59 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-eshdSimfoxuy32ffzi3cV9ZVgh0KS8aLsN6aAjOCF+AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: draft-irtf-cfrg-spake2@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org, cfrg-chairs@ietf.org, The IRSG <irsg@irtf.org>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <163525693995.4697.7467192209833033165@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKKJt-eshdSimfoxuy32ffzi3cV9ZVgh0KS8aLsN6aAjOCF+AQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 29
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/GRQM_XNChaVDskSwRNGC_U_8Ttk>
Subject: Re: [CFRG] [irsg] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-irtf-cfrg-spake2-23: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 23:19:19 -0000
Thanks, Spencer. I believe this draft is now ready for IESG conflict review, and will move it forward on Monday unless I hear objections. Colin > On 25 Nov 2021, at 13:47, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > Just to follow up, > > Thank you, Watson, for addressing all my comments in -24. This draft is now even more perfect. > > Best, > > Spencer > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 9:02 AM Spencer Dawkins via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org <mailto:noreply@ietf.org>> wrote: > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > draft-irtf-cfrg-spake2-23: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-spake2/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-spake2/> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I found this text in the Introduction to be helpful. > > “SPAKE2 was not selected as the result of the CFRG PAKE selection competition. > However, given existing use of variants in Kerberos and other applications it > was felt publication was beneficial.” > > Perhaps it’s worth including in the Abstract as well, because it does explain > why the document is being published in a way that’s not clear from the Abstract > now. > > If that makes sense, perhaps it’s worth including the second sentence in this > text from the Introduction, in the Abstract as well. > > “Many of these applications predated methods to hash to elliptic curves being > available or predated the publication of the PAKEs that were chosen as an > outcome of the PAKE selection competition. In cases where a symmetric PAKE is > needed, and hashing onto an elliptic curve at protocol execution time is not > available, SPAKE2 is useful.” > > I’m obviously not a CFRG guy, so I don’t know what crypto people need to see > first, but I’m surprised that section 3.2 doesn’t come before section 3.1. It > does an excellent job of explaining how SPAKE2 works as a protocol at a higher > level than 3.1. > > One nit in 3.2 - I see > > "If this assignment of roles is not possible a symmetric variant described > later MUST be used." > > With no pointer for “later”. I scanned the document for the string “symmetric”, > and I THINK I know where this text is pointing, but I’m guessing. > > While scanning, I noted this text: > > "In addition M and N may be equal to have a symmetric variant." > > This might be clearer as > > "If M and N are equal, this provides a symmetric variant." > > Do the right thing, of course! > > > > _______________________________________________ > CFRG mailing list > CFRG@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg -- Colin Perkins https://csperkins.org/
- [CFRG] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-irtf-cfrg-sp… Spencer Dawkins via Datatracker
- Re: [CFRG] [irsg] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-i… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [CFRG] [irsg] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-i… Colin Perkins