Return-Path: 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 2C599131B5F for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 11:23:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.521 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 n66kxT_EgtCF for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 11:23:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73C1B13184B for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 11:23:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8091; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1499279005; x=1500488605; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=/UzDhYRte9UvBZ0LSi8t3eiiRyL7yxuoH4UOdZ7Jhw4=; b=NwvlAHbdtaVDoF2e8CIo+Pe0Dx77oNgDZKOfezbmhSl2uMoZDM3EPsiz hkXIsDPfP/FcN/OFqrFxRq7s1iJG35ynhtAktqQCETwW9qkF8msm8tEOO UwQ80gQB8CVzqdybDSnc7KdSK1rv9EtkunQAycysKqzi9ZqNRGgMKCWMR g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A4AgCDLV1Z/4ENJK1dGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBgm9qY4EQB7A9hSyCESyFcIMeQRYBAgEBAQEBAQFrHQuFHS9MEgGBACY?= =?us-ascii?q?BBA4NiUNkELBoiz8BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdgyeDTIFhgySBJIk6B?= =?us-ascii?q?Zcph10CgWOFYow1gmuPPHCUQgEPFwUsP0t1FYVbHYFmdgGHdYENAQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,312,1496102400"; d="scan'208,217";a="448868576" Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 05 Jul 2017 18:23:24 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (xch-rtp-001.cisco.com [64.101.220.141]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v65INO98002509 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 18:23:24 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-006.cisco.com (64.101.220.146) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 14:23:23 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-006.cisco.com ([64.101.220.146]) by XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com ([64.101.220.146]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 14:23:23 -0400 From: "Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)" To: "cfrg@irtf.org" CC: "David McGrew (mcgrew)" Thread-Topic: Request for a slot to discuss the LMS hash based signatures at Prague Thread-Index: AdL1u8jStyGum1IMQimgMKynsUjIXg== Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 18:23:23 +0000 Message-ID: <05a9099ce483405ea988bc6053ceff66@XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.98.2.55] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_05a9099ce483405ea988bc6053ceff66XCHRTP006ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [Cfrg] Request for a slot to discuss the LMS hash based signatures at Prague X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 18:23:27 -0000 --_000_05a9099ce483405ea988bc6053ceff66XCHRTP006ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I would ask to request a slot to discuss the LMS hash based signatures a= t the CRFG in-person meeting at Prague. I will not be there in person, how= ever David McGrew will be (and I'll be attending virtually). We have: - The latest version of the LMS draft: https://datatracker.ietf.or= g/doc/draft-mcgrew-hash-sigs/ - A proof of security (in the Random Oracle model, where the hash = compression function is considered the random Oracle): http://eprint.iacr.o= rg/2017/553.pdf - A comparison of this proposal with the XMSS proposal under consi= deration by the CRFG: http://eprint.iacr.org/2017/349.pdf - A practical implementation of this draft: https://github.com/cis= co/hash-sigs Thank you! --_000_05a9099ce483405ea988bc6053ceff66XCHRTP006ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 

   I would ask to request a slot to discus= s the LMS hash based signatures at the CRFG in-person meeting at Prague.&nb= sp; I will not be there in person, however David McGrew will be (and I̵= 7;ll be attending virtually).

 

   We have:

 

-     &= nbsp;    The latest version of the LMS draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcgrew-hash-sigs/

-     &= nbsp;    A proof of security (in the Random Oracle model, wh= ere the hash compression function is considered the random Oracle): http://eprint.iacr.org/2017= /553.pdf

-     &= nbsp;    A comparison of this proposal with the XMSS proposa= l under consideration by the CRFG: http://eprint.iacr.org/2017= /349.pdf

-     &= nbsp;    A practical implementation of this draft: https://github.com/cisco/hash-sigs

 

Thank you!

--_000_05a9099ce483405ea988bc6053ceff66XCHRTP006ciscocom_--