Re: [Cfrg] Suggestion for open competition on PAKE -> Was Re: Dragonfly has advantages

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sat, 04 January 2014 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 B4FF71AE087 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jan 2014 13:28:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no
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 1CD7QTxPWB-S for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jan 2014 13:28:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E50C71AE092 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 4 Jan 2014 13:28:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s04L8EKw000780 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 4 Jan 2014 14:08:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CEEDD67B.22CC7%feng.hao@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 13:28:21 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <45E98E61-EF0B-4CC0-A88D-50C7EDCE2AD8@vpnc.org>
References: <CEEDD67B.22CC7%feng.hao@newcastle.ac.uk>
To: Feng Hao <feng.hao@newcastle.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Suggestion for open competition on PAKE -> Was Re: Dragonfly has advantages
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: Sat, 04 Jan 2014 21:28:20 -0000

The IPsecME WG tried something like this, and it ended with bloody stumps all around. This isn't to say that it would fail in the CFRG, but many of the same people are in both groups.

--Paul Hoffman