IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] irsg review of draft-mcgrew-hash-sigs-12

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 05 September 2018 08:33 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 DAADA130DDD; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 01:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 LH7gFFLDFBTx; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 01:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87B91128B14; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 01:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id r69-v6so12101743oie.3; Wed, 05 Sep 2018 01:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gI56PhiHsCDvS5hUDrbZbchE/qA+I0NVYkg1rCR7VL8=; b=uZ4oGgHr/lqXUfsdqWP9SHAh6qSseS/fPtARS3VGMKeW6pmZGAsQHQP1kJAX7Dl9hj QpTCJsZla8H6yoAG4tKc5asUYbEFWW6ieUVS4HG8kXntiesF6JJS5RnMHEck9f+RNRJ1 Ja4DMeth7t5LQOApdN8vymS7o6kiTmFWBfY4swFEPo6bBO8L5hhnMHu+2q+4KB/aKW+w +M/rARUub7ETHsjOsem/pv/rgYC1oidNdAntUP+pMsDop5JGmXuP6qqwcFS81j0kJ7i5 NQo0p9Ip/h3KMSrwr1bL4RvzpphXcjagIgkwsqecA/t6AgWhvnKb0dJU7wT3ymih/sfU ZYrQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gI56PhiHsCDvS5hUDrbZbchE/qA+I0NVYkg1rCR7VL8=; b=ZXUKs+CD0CgR32n0pIdNO2FDojStHI1aHIBvxN6AuvTPqZB+3BfljhVzkgAwfysHqR FdpotF+z5FDglmPfR1yMdeKqbVls7r6AQ+GDLnA9Svnrr15JU+a9Ki/fBtYfcazwj/s4 F3LBqdgrRnNLROdQofNdo8Iw9iGgynleRy83ozlndmR/0Wf/nhnGtu7P9eBnlzIcN5bD CqH91DUmOx+5ZcpiM1gHuv/g3LsrBSc3s9+xByi2TN81Tz7FesEro/a3VjyQ5/mxZY7X mvAZmaTIHYCQrIrrw03aCjmPniniNt5IanVqU2kLR9lrt4PG9lqjqSDbpj5WyAISWDis JhlQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51BuW8Aw8kyeEA4mh21NLRCTeaydUTlC9e9tDaUXFocbDG8CsBxT 428a7KaXBMuZdCvUoDOTquiqgsmWBUL/izsHIHo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdbSxS49/PmoQUTUt8PEjF0XOTYi90jKgpqMsF9XHnqqD3q3jZkG91mcmuZgtc81sTtOiuValekwK6ZT3RnqjkU=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:b208:: with SMTP id b8-v6mr19114922oif.144.1536136404708; Wed, 05 Sep 2018 01:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <be39f4e5-1cf7-9bf4-1bcb-6192e2168137@cs.tcd.ie> <b822dc1c93ae440291cabd642404d671@XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com> <59d9a102-8ba8-3469-8277-3facb0dd6a11@cs.tcd.ie> <c49c33c775df425ca76886082b3b19c2@XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com> <2ec3c347-47c9-79e2-22c0-bc8d257e4f90@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <2ec3c347-47c9-79e2-22c0-bc8d257e4f90@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2018 18:33:13 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnV-3tHZGT3pJjhFM=_p2fVJP0vB0_kwfYZsffEdhreY1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: "Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)" <sfluhrer@cisco.com>, IRTF CFRG <cfrg@irtf.org>, "irsg@irtf.org" <irsg@irtf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bab10305751ba07a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/atqhjhm2e2ZLvBM--CPvPDjRRvI>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] irsg review of draft-mcgrew-hash-sigs-12
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: Wed, 05 Sep 2018 08:33:28 -0000

On Wed, 5 Sep. 2018, 18:03 Stephen Farrell, <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
wrote:

>
> I disagree. We have seen cases (e.g. [1]) where CFRG RFCs
> leaving in options has lead to IETF WGs debating what to do,
> over and over. That seems to me to be CFRG's "fault" as it's
> predictable and could affect interop.
>

I agree with Stephen here. Though that part of the work might be more
difficult, it is also the most valuable. Getting a tool with multiple knobs
is not a net improvement over having no tool at all, and it can lead to
interop failures.

Too many primitives we get are effectively unusable as a result of having
options. The debate around ed25519 use for DKIM is a great example of that.
RSA-PSS is another great example of a tool with too many independent inputs.

Those who find the one option too constraining can take on the extra costs
of breaking new ground. Most should not have to.

>

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status