Re: [Cfrg] Adoption call for draft-sullivan-cfrg-voprf

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Kenny’s analysis here.

This seems like a problem area that has overlap a few applications within
the usual CFRG customer space (IETF, but also internet infrastructure
things more broadly).  I have reviewed the document, and it seems like a
reasonable starting point.  I support its adoption.

—Richard


On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 09:36 Paterson Kenneth <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Rene,
>
>
>
> You’re right that there’s not been much discussion on the list about this
> draft. It was presented at IETF 101 and there was some discussion in person
> at the meeting; below is a relevant extract from the minutes of the meeting
> (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-cfrg-00.pdf
> ):
>
>
>
>
>
> Verifiable Oblivious Pseudorandom Functions (VOPRFs)
>
> ====================================================
>
> presenter: Nick Sullivan
>
> slides:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-cfrg-4-voprfs-00
>
> draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sullivan-cfrg-voprf/
>
>
>
> Sullivan introduced a draft that constructs VOPRF based on Elliptic Curves.
>
>
>
> Q: (): What is the contents of the draft -- I didn't read it.  You
> discussed several crypto primitives.
>
> A: (Sullivan): A generic description of VOPRFs and a specific
> instantiation.
>
>
>
> Q: (Melnikov): What are you interest in having happen to this draft?
>
> A: (Sullivan): CFRG adoption.
>
> A: (Paterson): How do you you see this and the above draft progressing
> given the dependency?
>
> A: (Sullivan): They can proceed in parallel.
>
>
>
> Q: (Gillmor): One of the concerns is how the key remains constant?
>
> A: (Sullivan): You're noting the tagging attack.  The signer’s public key
> needs public verifiability -- maybe a transparency log or consensus
> protocol.  Those are outside of the scope of the draft.
>
> A: (Gillmor): I was hoping to hear that they should be separate.
>
> A: (Sullivan): We'll add language to the draft.
>
> A: (Melnikov): Let's take further discussion to the mailing list.
>
>
>
>
>
> Perhaps the draft’s authors can clarify here on the extent to which there
> is a dependency on other drafts, especially the ristretto draft (which is
> not a CFRG document, currently).
>
>
>
> I think this draft does fit with the CFRG charter, in that VOPRFs are an
> emerging cryptographic mechanism that at least some people here see as
> being useful in contexts traditionally associated with IETF. Again, the
> authors of the draft can explain their intended applications better than
> me, but I think a good starting point if you are interested in knowing more
> would be:
>
>
>
> https://petsymposium.org/2018/files/papers/issue3/popets-2018-0026.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> My personal take on the “CFRG philosophy” is that we should respond to the
> interests and needs of the CFRG community, interpreted broadly. So if
> people express a willingness to work on something, there is general support
> for adoption, and the technical content is cryptographic and useful in
> contexts traditionally associated with IETF, then we should do it. Of
> course, the previous sentence is deliberately imprecise, and a case-by-case
> judgement call on the part of the chairs is needed. The mechanism of having
> a call for adoption provides key input to that decision-making process.
>
>
>
> I hope this helps – happy to discuss further of course, but perhaps the
> more general discussion should be on a different thread to this adoption
> call.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Kenny
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Rene Struik <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 7 May 2019 at 23:01
> *To: *Paterson Kenneth <[e-mail]>, CFRG <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Cfrg] Adoption call for draft-sullivan-cfrg-voprf
>
>
>
> Hi Kenny:
>
>
>
> I had some trouble finding recent discussions on this document. The
> document seems to have dependencies on other drafts (e.g., Ristretto) for
> which it is very hard to find any discussion either (and are not that easy
> to read ). If you could point to this, that would be great.
>
>
>
> Could you explain how this fits within CFRG's charter? What is the general
> philosophy nowadays ("more is better" vs. "less is more", protocols with
> wide applicability vs. specialized, etc, etc.)?
>
>
>
> Best regards, Rene
>
>
>
> [excerpted from https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/cfrg/about/]
>
>
>
> The Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG) is a general forum for discussing
> and reviewing uses of cryptographic mechanisms, both for network security
> in general and for the IETF in particular.
>
> The CFRG serves as a bridge between theory and practice, bringing new
> cryptographic techniques to the Internet community and promoting an
> understanding of the use and applicability of these mechanisms via
> Informational RFCs (in the tradition of, e.g., RFC 1321 (MD5) and RFC 2104
> (HMAC). Our goal is to provide a forum for discussing and analyzing general
> cryptographic aspects of security protocols, and to offer guidance on the
> use of emerging mechanisms and new uses of existing mechanisms. IETF
> working groups developing protocols that include cryptographic elements are
> welcome to bring questions concerning the protocols to the CFRG for advice.
>
> Meetings and Membership
>
> The CFRG meetings, membership, and mailing list are open to all who wish
> to participate.
>
>
>
> On 5/7/2019 11:44 AM, Paterson Kenneth wrote:
>
> Dear CFRG,
>
>
>
> This email starts a 2-week adoption call for:
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sullivan-cfrg-voprf/
>
> Oblivious Pseudorandom Functions (OPRFs) using Prime-Order Groups
>
>
>
> Please give your views on whether this document should be adopted as a CFRG draft, and if so, whether you'd be willing to help work on it/review it.
>
>
>
> (We have two other adoption calls running concurrently; they will end this Friday, May 10th.)
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Kenny (for the chairs)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Cfrg mailing list
>
> [e-mail]
>
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>
>
>
> --
>
> email: [e-mail] | Skype: rstruik
>
> cell: [phone] | US: [phone]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>