Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG
"Igoe, Kevin M." <kmigoe@nsa.gov> Wed, 22 January 2014 17:30 UTC
Return-Path: <kmigoe@nsa.gov>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E908C1A018B for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 09:30:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.435
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham
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 FpYBlOdMek_a for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 09:30:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nsa.gov (emvm-gh1-uea08.nsa.gov [63.239.67.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D8A1A010C for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 09:30:02 -0800 (PST)
X-TM-IMSS-Message-ID: <37170aca0000ae4b@nsa.gov>
Received: from MSHT-GH1-UEA01.corp.nsa.gov ([10.215.227.18]) by nsa.gov ([63.239.67.9]) with ESMTP (TREND IMSS SMTP Service 7.1; TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA (128/128)) id 37170aca0000ae4b ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:28:54 -0500
Received: from MSMR-GH1-UEA10.corp.nsa.gov (10.215.228.27) by MSHT-GH1-UEA01.corp.nsa.gov (10.215.227.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.342.3; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:29:53 -0500
Received: from MSMR-GH1-UEA03.corp.nsa.gov ([10.215.224.3]) by MSMR-GH1-UEA10.corp.nsa.gov ([10.215.228.27]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:29:52 -0500
From: "Igoe, Kevin M." <kmigoe@nsa.gov>
To: "'dan@geer.org'" <dan@geer.org>, Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com>
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG
Thread-Index: AQHPDibLaoNqUt2ivECHwED6qdKLMJqRDohA
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:29:52 +0000
Message-ID: <3C4AAD4B5304AB44A6BA85173B4675CABA9C8FFD@MSMR-GH1-UEA03.corp.nsa.gov>
References: Your message of "Tue, 07 Jan 2014 13:05:31 PST." <CEF1A5BF.2BBC6%paul@marvell.com> <20140110171000.15EB92280EA@palinka.tinho.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140110171000.15EB92280EA@palinka.tinho.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.215.224.46]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>, David McGrew <mcgrew@cisco.com>, "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:30:05 -0000
If we were to put "key centric" on the CFRG agenda for IETF-89, do we have a speaker willing to give a presentation? If this is too short of a deadline to meet, we can always have a presentation at a later meeting? Three options: 1) discuss at nest meeting 2) discuss in the near future but not at the next meeting 3) no support for a presentation in the near future. Maybe sometime later. 4) Utter silence on the mailing list. As to #4, the Germans have a saying "Keine Antwort ist auch eine Antwort" (no is answer is also an answer). > -----Original Message----- > From: Cfrg [mailto:cfrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of dan@geer.org > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 12:10 PM > To: Paul Lambert > Cc: Sean Turner; David McGrew; cfrg@irtf.org > Subject: Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG > > > > A useful mechanism, but it would be better to start with reexamining > and > redefining our usage of public keys. Specifically - I'm an > advocate of > keys as the primary identifiers. A "key centric" > approach is a dual model > > to Kohnfelder/X.509 The SDSI/SPKI work did progress work in this > > direction, but failed for a variety of reasons. > > Key-centric versus name-centric identity is The Question, is it not? > > I rather doubt that the Administration's push for the NSTIC is likely > to settle in on key-centricity, but might you elaborate on your > preference for it? I'm sympathetic to it on the grounds that it > directly enables multi-personna and, thus, data segmentation. > > If I'm being obtuse, feel free to say so. > > --dan > > _______________________________________________ > Cfrg mailing list > Cfrg@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG David McGrew
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG David McGrew
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Trevor Perrin
- [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG David McGrew
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Sean Turner
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Henrick Hellström
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG David Wagner
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Henrick Hellström
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Henrick Hellström
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Paul Lambert
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG David McGrew
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Paul Lambert
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG William Whyte
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Watson Ladd
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Paul Lambert
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Dan Brown
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Blumenthal, Uri - 0558 - MITLL
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Paul Lambert
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG William Whyte
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Max Pritikin (pritikin)
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Watson Ladd
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Sean Turner
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Sean Turner
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Adam Back
- [Cfrg] QKD is pointless (was: Re: considering new… David McGrew
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Cfrg] QKD is pointless (was: Re: considering… Paterson, Kenny
- Re: [Cfrg] QKD is pointless (was: Re: considering… Sean Turner
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Sean Turner
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Max Pritikin (pritikin)
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Dan Brown
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Paul Lambert
- Re: [Cfrg] QKD is pointless (was: Re: considering… Igoe, Kevin M.
- Re: [Cfrg] QKD is pointless (was: Re: considering… Igoe, Kevin M.
- Re: [Cfrg] QKD is pointless (was: Re: considering… Watson Ladd
- [Cfrg] DANE in the IETF (was: Re: considering new… Paul Hoffman
- [Cfrg] One Key -> RE: considering new topics for … Paul Lambert
- Re: [Cfrg] QKD is pointless (was: Re: considering… Paul Lambert
- [Cfrg] ReL DANE in the IETF (was: Re: considering… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Cfrg] QKD is pointless David McGrew
- Re: [Cfrg] QKD is pointless Hilarie Orman
- [Cfrg] likelihood that someone has a quantum comp… David McGrew
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG dan
- Re: [Cfrg] likelihood that someone has a quantum … David Jacobson
- Re: [Cfrg] likelihood that someone has a quantum … William Whyte
- Re: [Cfrg] likelihood that someone has a quantum … Watson Ladd
- Re: [Cfrg] likelihood that someone has a quantum … Yoav Nir
- Re: [Cfrg] likelihood that someone has a quantum … Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Cfrg] likelihood that someone has a quantum … William Whyte
- Re: [Cfrg] likelihood that someone has a quantum … David McGrew
- Re: [Cfrg] likelihood that someone has a quantum … David McGrew
- Re: [Cfrg] likelihood that someone has a quantum … William Whyte
- Re: [Cfrg] likelihood that someone has a quantum … arne renkema-padmos
- Re: [Cfrg] likelihood that someone has a quantum … Igoe, Kevin M.
- Re: [Cfrg] QKD is pointless David Wagner
- Re: [Cfrg] likelihood that someone has a quantum … William Whyte
- Re: [Cfrg] likelihood that someone has a quantum … William Whyte
- Re: [Cfrg] likelihood that someone has a quantum … William Whyte
- Re: [Cfrg] likelihood that someone has a quantum … David McGrew
- Re: [Cfrg] likelihood that someone has a quantum … arne renkema-padmos
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Paul Lambert
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Igoe, Kevin M.
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG Paul Lambert
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG David McGrew
- [Cfrg] 'key centric' architecture (was: Re: consi… Rene Struik
- Re: [Cfrg] 'key centric' architecture (was: Re: c… Richard Barnes
- Re: [Cfrg] considering new topics for CFRG David McGrew