Re: [Cfrg] Round 2 of the PAKE selection process

"Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <smyshsv@gmail.com> Thu, 21 November 2019 15:12 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 EE6EC12085D for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 07:12:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Syu6KluLxXEz for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 07:12:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (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 B4647120843 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 07:12:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id f16so2946041lfm.3 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 07:12:08 -0800 (PST)
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=Wc8MH2kGgiwgmHCZeyCM0CFpb7BUA7i7G1K7Uk7s9CY=; b=ZBE4eUEYo9Vni5Bf1IBfuRYaVSZTCG4k/EFCY4oOBdKqgG0NJk6rSPUD5/DneaxxFL SH59MUzj3R8UGcf0HVNdcdkv8Yv8ZtwEgKzlpjaHCVSehXiuDhaPkpnA72m0atKhbV0o 7aWw1JsA47Rjjm1LMz0gv7IrxqvLThKXQgiJdHyrj5CGgG2qWuxgQunKVYlvL97Gt/TC rC2a9iZjiGDeymuXtZAOeczC4alPiZ5z2SSnOzaml87TfdkDZuStDgCCM9keJkuyjldt fWYTWRLTAOrTlA+scU8JCAfSfUi/KKGWBJkAjng9Yf8OpaI+hcsiJWFHZfbxGrF4DaW+ KOLw==
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=Wc8MH2kGgiwgmHCZeyCM0CFpb7BUA7i7G1K7Uk7s9CY=; b=AcgKDhZrrgd5M70kjkE/J3DP4bARuq44/AGUAkIwUjto0YpjnQFkQfcCaalNQc+LWl eRuON+btcedyfg+indTAPO+d0mWW8KoU/1OW6NkXTgqEwZNrCJ8OGZTd2N2ebBF3rdtx H5pXmug27izWUC/VHm4hxwbNWLjIbsOCd4JqQcUuoyO0rC2B3V7a+0eG5D+YRqhVflNH Jds0WMgoDcyl6YcHzIARmwQTpcqxV15cPildAe6TXzpaHMET1G+qOk/aXVeAfl2ZbnSg Gmsj6jJpwJ5KSKntD/tpX1g4VDp4Duq+zvUmWygrvWgCHxPv4Ws5tv54v+XGUcOPYEUy tj2Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX4fBgwGdfe4p35E8YA3uVMfr0u3OYCwmf+wEaUutfppjkUjYtG fJW+5G+BAdcjA4Px7K7nwjcthToyfOVQlcyAdEo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx4rcNtOGJqGgeMHQ3aNlNPy/2f8rOeinLcxpbok7ndpcow9xGUBbKrnnsqYVPvlrLInAUGfneHOpkbreW6vvw=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:499:: with SMTP id v25mr5404042lfq.9.1574349126861; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 07:12:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMr0u6nPQxO5X1Txoeh5X7jN=eHscRCBH0HJW=3tbqUdjn8N4Q@mail.gmail.com> <BA639DCD-B3B9-40BD-AF6D-1A4CE9425A03@live.warwick.ac.uk> <CAMr0u6mDx_NnvJq_LpRZSBkWe707mn=HBrELeXsjYXvTTMtzRw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMr0u6n2Hp-h_hey=Z7ucjSWCV+0pYovtYbW0SX0f9Hw4Rqn4A@mail.gmail.com> <8DDC5DF8-B89C-461C-AA33-9C7F616A3540@live.warwick.ac.uk> <CAMr0u6k97t8BVPEeJ2ZW4DZheb2s7PeKkdoXQLmYcTEvntN7ow@mail.gmail.com> <CAB4EDC7-A341-4340-926D-AA8EA829A81E@live.warwick.ac.uk> <CAMr0u6=Ue_PrHxyzNpqdFSAEmezQbE1GCC-ci9fQ5AoRrKWQ9Q@mail.gmail.com> <E923AAC6-82FD-4825-9B24-1CBC4A7D3FCE@live.warwick.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <E923AAC6-82FD-4825-9B24-1CBC4A7D3FCE@live.warwick.ac.uk>
From: "Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <smyshsv@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:11:55 +0300
Message-ID: <CAMr0u6k003jCL1h5tjyqDCXUyPoa9eHZz2jhtgL1MQpSBevFNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Hao, Feng" <Feng.Hao@warwick.ac.uk>
Cc: "cfrg-chairs@ietf.org" <cfrg-chairs@ietf.org>, CFRG <cfrg@irtf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000758a840597dcb82d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/oW0mnb0jLSaCGDiRhpEMixeG1zQ>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Round 2 of the PAKE selection process
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 15:12:12 -0000

Dear Feng,

According to the plan of the PAKE selection process (see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/-J43ZsPw2J5MBC-k8y6--kJJtZk),
the resulting recommendations on Stage 5 are provided as the set of overall
reviews ("Crypto Review Panel members write overall reviews for all candidate
PAKEs, based on the materials that have been gathered and verified."). All
PAKEs, mentioned as recommended in this set, have moved to the Round 2.

Best regards,
Stanislav

чт, 21 нояб. 2019 г. в 17:51, Hao, Feng <Feng.Hao@warwick.ac.uk>;:

>
>
> OK. My last email on this subject (sorry for folks on the list if it looks
> like a spam)
>
>
>
> If a coherent panel summary for the round 1 result is too much to ask for,
> please ignore me.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Feng
>
>
>
> *From: *"Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <smyshsv@gmail.com>;
> *Date: *Thursday, 21 November 2019 at 13:14
> *To: *"Hao, Feng" <Feng.Hao@warwick.ac.uk>;
> *Cc: *"cfrg-chairs@ietf.org"; <cfrg-chairs@ietf.org>;, "cfrg@irtf.org"; <
> cfrg@irtf.org>;
> *Subject: *Re: [Cfrg] Round 2 of the PAKE selection process
>
>
>
> Dear Feng,
>
>
>
> All materials of the PAKE selection process were published at
> https://github.com/cfrg/pake-selection. The questions that were addressed
> had been collected from the CFRG at Stage 1 of the selection process (and
> all collected questions were included to the list), then answered by the
> authors of the protocols - all those materials can be found at the GitHub,
> as well as the reviews by the independent reviewers who evaluated them (see
> https://github.com/cfrg/pake-selection#summary-of-reviews). The Crypto
> Review Panel experts then provided their overall reviews, taking into
> account all collected materials and reviews from independent experts.
>
>
>
> Their recommendations, published at
> https://github.com/cfrg/pake-selection#overall-reviews-by-crypto-review-panel,
> have become the resulting summary (prepared by four experts of the Crypto
> Review Panel independently). The PAKEs, selection of which were recommended
> at least by some of the four experts, have passed to Round 2. Additional
> questions about these four candidates (e.g., my clarifying question about
> possible ways of selection of M and N) are collected now until December,
> 5th.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Stanislav
>
>
>
>
>
> чт, 21 нояб. 2019 г. в 15:36, Hao, Feng <Feng.Hao@warwick.ac.uk>;:
>
> Dear Stanislav,
>
> If these questions are relevant, has the panel already considered them? If
> not, they probably will not bother for the next round either. If they have,
> it's reasonable for the panel to publish a summary of reasons to explain
> the decision in the interest of complete openness and transparency. That
> will be useful for the people on this list to better understand how the
> decision has been made, and how it will be made in round 2.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Feng
>
>
>
> *From: *"Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <smyshsv@gmail.com>;
> *Date: *Thursday, 21 November 2019 at 06:35
> *To: *"Hao, Feng" <Feng.Hao@warwick.ac.uk>;, "cfrg-chairs@ietf.org"; <
> cfrg-chairs@ietf.org>;
> *Cc: *CFRG <cfrg@irtf.org>;
> *Subject: *Re: [Cfrg] Round 2 of the PAKE selection process
>
>
>
> Dear Feng,
>
>
>
> >>   I appreciate all the efforts put in by the panel. I respect how this
> process is currently run and the result, so I don’t intend to change
> anything. But I hope these questions are still relevant and helpful for the
> round 2.
>
> Thank you, Feng!
>
>
>
> I fully agree that all these questions are still relevant for the Round 2
> (especially the ones that are addressed in the four Crypto Review Panel
> overall reviews less deeply than the others). Could you please formulate
> the questions that need to be considered (or maybe re-considered, taking
> into account new aspects) on Round 2?..
>
> If possible, in the form of a list of clear and reasonably short questions
> - to be added to the overall list of the questions considered on Round 2
> (according to the announcement, could you please send them to
> crypto-panel@irtf.org, please?)
>
>
>
> This will be a very important and helpful input of yours - among other
> things, because the issues you mention should also be addressed in the
> future RFC on recommendations for usage of PAKEs in the IETF protocols
> (provided that it will be the next step of the CFRG after the PAKE
> selection process is over).
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Stanislav
>
>
>
>