[Cfrg] Further actions on PAKEs: one/two documents; call for editors
"Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <smyshsv@gmail.com> Wed, 06 May 2020 12:12 UTC
Return-Path: <smyshsv@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 606BF3A09BA for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2020 05:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 Qp3BKQmowAIJ for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2020 05:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22d.google.com (mail-lj1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22d]) (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 D1F633A09D8 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 6 May 2020 05:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id g4so2102074ljl.2 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 06 May 2020 05:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=e5qgwQ12FdzZt/yn3TfCqb9UzmNb3bYxk5IMWCcGfqs=; b=cZv0GRLIFrx+SB6nEhNavixWNb+XOeFvp1GX5PZPbvG9L+k2IvrWhq8cQDC1rP1wFl 9uwfMnphmvxeaE8n0D0zvW6ZPGigbLpi2Qg0iGrq550GSOjidriHLKs0WTMwN60il0Xc F6Mg8O/VdtilEi/65F7TtpcqqGdbK+VMqMaMYW6gGFR0THrsuxZtPhHxU0A/BYa05FA3 LDNZGKJXUS649OoWEfE3HS1HU5bCYyxPzbUvgcPPbZXTNadCLoAg+KspSID/vizxJ7/D Pw/wZfuDMzLUa8QK8HlOfTd+62cvfSgRQrjnLPWfLzl5uuy05g/EL5UTOExnqERCL9Vb leIw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=e5qgwQ12FdzZt/yn3TfCqb9UzmNb3bYxk5IMWCcGfqs=; b=qAps8h9zGY7/0X3CaXsHnWe6+AILFdVJjlZcLzGQgK12gfOzoncQqfWBvxh3U/fXCo m5KYN+/qlYBssj3zfxIHuswzleN/xaz4T1L42t/rdHUIc02lBriYFCvOTrDTWnsrfYqw mF86DNbbrI2IU5AqOAgbD176ugjBr+pB+ej16SHF6BGyxLqkxjPZpdsW5pdp4TskPFGQ rXxoYwU9vo3qPHTpvhmttmW/Mos16Cbmr0XR+OuERo+aMv2t+Ck/yVv7GBCu3xlbjtfA mWGO8/qbdnDM52YwnOnSfwoWDDMaAuBXUDSvCqxvT5PBWXPh595ZEK9fwNI45TZ2G9Wv Gqog==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuaFdMq2sNJ+CAmVQU1HsMOChEQGrAdzS0jqYtHKN+bXnP+5Xavc 0tEPAnJ43SlHspCPMpSCOxKI6PZVabncYnp4lbV3jVouzxc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIyggi1tmc+4++VXZ9+9HSROqaRNJQZeDfZhyZezitwlm98OHzB5AFbzRfgJBetF5EAY2vWuyQ/RQ51b6dg7BA=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:2a42:: with SMTP id q63mr4491705ljq.81.1588767150809; Wed, 06 May 2020 05:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <smyshsv@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 15:10:28 +0300
Message-ID: <CAMr0u6mG-Tt+c6kLzKU8PuxcwKc9ty6LWz9tjz6kKfk=p1k_=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: CFRG <cfrg@irtf.org>
Cc: cfrg-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a7a92d05a4f9ad9c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/eWm1Q0aH_J5irXpSjIHBTGBEf7Q>
Subject: [Cfrg] Further actions on PAKEs: one/two documents; call for editors
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, 06 May 2020 12:12:35 -0000
Dear CFRG, This is a reminder that (as we have said at the recent CFRG virtual interim) we are seeking for the opinions (and volunteers!) regarding the futher steps after the end of the PAKE selection process. We asked the following two questions about our further actions about the PAKE documents. *1) Do we need one or two documents?* Option 1: "Recommendations for password-based authenticated key establishment in IETF protocols" with both CPace and OPAQUE. Option 2: "Recommendations for balanced password-based authenticated key establishment in IETF protocols" with CPace and "Recommendations for augmented password-based authenticated key establishment in IETF protocols" with OPAQUE. *2) Call for editors, authors* Regarding the number of documents: during the meeting, a certain amount of support for Option 2 (two documents) was expressed (see the minutes). Please express your opinion here in the list (especially if you are in favor of Option 1), if you have something to say. And we really need editor(s) for this/these document(s) - please let us know if you are happy to help! Take care. Best regards, CFRG Chairs
- [Cfrg] Further actions on PAKEs: one/two document… Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev
- Re: [Cfrg] Further actions on PAKEs: one/two docu… Hugo Krawczyk
- Re: [Cfrg] Further actions on PAKEs: one/two docu… Björn Haase
- Re: [Cfrg] Further actions on PAKEs: one/two docu… "Björn Haase"
- Re: [Cfrg] Further actions on PAKEs: one/two docu… Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev