[CFRG] Re: [irsg] Ari Keränen's No Objection on draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve-15: (with COMMENT)

[Gilles VAN ASSCHE <[e-mail]>]

Dear Ari, Carsten, Colin, Max, all,

Many thanks for your feedback on this matter. We will work on the IANA considerations and make a concrete proposal.

Kind regards,
Gilles




ST Restricted

From: Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>
Sent: vendredi 29 novembre 2024 16:16
To: Ari Keränen <[e-mail]>
Cc: Gilles VAN ASSCHE <[e-mail]>; Maximilian Lorlacks <[e-mail]>; The IRSG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Nick Sullivan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [irsg] [CFRG] Ari Keränen's No Objection on draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve-15: (with COMMENT)


Hi,

That’s a good point.
Colin


On 27 Nov 2024, at 7:27, Ari Keränen wrote:
Hi,

Given the registration has already been done and someone might be using these, removing them now sounds sub-optimal to me. I’d rather suggest just documenting in the IANA section that these were allocated with a note that future allocations would be handled differently. Perhaps adding a few words on why the two entries were (originally?) considered important enough to register (e.g., that have typically used parameter values).


Cheers,
Ari


From: Colin Perkins <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, 27. November 2024 at 1.13
To: Gilles VAN ASSCHE <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Maximilian Lorlacks <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Ari Keränen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, The IRSG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Nick Sullivan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [irsg] [CFRG] Ari Keränen's No Objection on draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve-15: (with COMMENT)

Hi,

That’s fine from my part – but you will need to add an IANA Considerations section to the draft to request IANA do so.

Colin


On 25 Nov 2024, at 10:58, Gilles VAN ASSCHE wrote:
Hi Colin,

Good point. After discussions among the authors, we suggest removing the k12-256 and k12-512 entries from the registry.

Kind regards,
Gilles




ST Restricted
From: Colin Perkins <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: jeudi 21 novembre 2024 14:43
To: Gilles VAN ASSCHE <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Maximilian Lorlacks <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ari Keränen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; The IRSG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Nick Sullivan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [irsg] [CFRG] Ari Keränen's No Objection on draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve-15: (with COMMENT)


Hi,

The existing registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/named-information/named-information.xml) points to an old version (-06) of this draft. Is that still appropriate, or should the registry be updated to either remove these entries or to point to the RFC number assigned to this draft once published?

Colin

On 19 Nov 2024, at 12:13, Gilles VAN ASSCHE wrote:

Dear Ari, dear Max,

In the past, we discussed internally about the Named Information Hash Algorithm Registry, and we decided that no IANA actions were needed. The reason is that the registry contains fixed-output length hash functions, whereas our draft proposes extendable output functions (XOFs) that have no defined output length. As for the two existing entries, I would not go further adding (XOF, output length) pairs as hash functions, because the list is potentially infinite.

Instead, in the long run, it may be interesting to create a registry dedicated to XOFs, but at this moment, I would just leave it as it is.

Kind regards,
Gilles

ST Restricted
-----Original Message-----
From: Maximilian Lorlacks [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Sent: vendredi 15 novembre 2024 18:40
To: Ari Keränen [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: The IRSG [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Nick Sullivan [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CFRG] Ari Keränen's No Objection on draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve-15: (with COMMENT)

Hi all,

Looking at the NIH entry, I couldn't help but notice that it predates TurboSHAKE. If an IANA considerations section is introduced, would the authors feel like it would be helpful to include a TurboSHAKE profile for NIH as well?

Cheers,

Max

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Friday, November 15th, 2024 at 1:39 PM, Ari Keränen via Datatracker [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:

Ari Keränen has entered the following ballot position for
draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve-15: No Objection

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-kangarootwelve/

________________________________
COMMENT:

Given there are two registrations of Hash Name Strings for this draft
in the Named Information IANA registry
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/named-information/named-information.
xhtml), this would be useful to be noted in the IANA Considerations
section.

________________________________

CFRG mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>