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

[Paul Lambert <[e-mail]>]

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
Starting point for what?  A definition of SPAKE2, or can we step back briefly and discuss requirements?
A PAKE is a building block … but not one with attributes that I’d recommend except for some very narrow use cases.

2) that you are not happy to adopt this draft
It might be a starting point for a PAKE, but is incomplete.  So, no.  However, it is worth discussing and improving if the goal is to provide a stable reference for SPAKE2.

3) that you think the document needs more work before the RG should consider adopting it
Yes. It’s missing:
 -  M and N definitions missing
 - Use of names and addresses in the calculation needs some work or rethink … again, what are requirements and what are we authenticating.
 - test vectors and wire formats
 - would be better if made into a more symmetric protocol and had a state machine definition


While detailed document reviews are generally welcome, this not a call to provide detailed comments on the document.
SPAKE2 has been used in industry.  Is the goal to document current practice?  That would lead to one set of comments.

Are we working to define a generally useful security protocol exchange with specific properties? That would be a different set of comments and perhaps more useful for long term impact.  I’d rather see energy spend on this topic than perpetuate PAKE based solutions, but this need not be mutually exclusive to defining SPAKE2.

Paul



Alexey,
On bahalf of CFRG chairs.