Re: [CFRG] Call for adoption for draft-wood-cfrg-rsa-blind-signatures

Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> Tue, 27 April 2021 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mt@lowentropy.net>
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 6DF073A2339 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.12 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=k8rm1B67; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=JWbgPx/p
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 D3qH-XhFLZq7 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 828C33A2336 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1FAAFD4 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 18:27:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap10 ([10.202.2.60]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 27 Apr 2021 18:27:10 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=OnVM6qYEf72PqxHtrdxJfP6IvM84f7f Fryuzhc3wUSE=; b=k8rm1B67+xbG9rMFUMQRmdbGaP9hM207TSGkSKU50cL2u4i sJObrz2Basf3pDek9LxKnUM2TAifPryZVj3pIJaoZPqoMiPxeR2I9LZX9ighD9nP K35z/554jVw5jh+yjz2tmGoSdfAe+Zs+cYjUdQ8bFJ+h8dbw6w0jP55CLMCYBm08 Isekxj3y6zhXeKmqNh/g41SsxolPB+zg7/jicIkgcU+Ciwm75XCdlOGKusnq4H0m c4mADcDThf1chOBOEgc2+yLQmHCG3S4gWDiiHTjsDReenyoeG4OddE7wpAosSK64 m5xD3UuFsAQcjVa7LdNqTlGRijASKctBONaLG/w==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=OnVM6q YEf72PqxHtrdxJfP6IvM84f7fFryuzhc3wUSE=; b=JWbgPx/pWeg1REl/4OUqXt r0WUYRdIrqGcG75phZ+CWC5GFf5178Y581LDn3QYWQ2D2t3G2X7Zzyi35bk1t+At XdB1hNHZcsjggPIqhGrTeYhxw55mk5KZ6whhcGN+EmlZgGTW+HG2HyPKI0vHHew5 5A+D87Q5H9u/RpNgNkm6LdqCdSn6RnR4F1ombVnCDl2QpafmgzT3z5fHwM4TGyyU Df5ca/mz8T54luPfrcqE4JQ9hyQWvuwlEHMlSrgVg5GA25HFCyBgV+CiDmROZYYc uGsLGTgt06oTXdlkNKyv+waRghfyg3eGXT1sYozn6VfssjXTCtzCGTjCd4h9hbMQ ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:vY-IYFsxImIoM3dQfZ9fHgd0oucb8d3_BTTgHquf-7zTDEjbjobfYw> <xme:vY-IYOfhwDLgNHeuaCqfBtE4UB6HuR6NJHABAkdiNuydJtqRcgjhD0_rsOcyaIYOO hcxHrp8084IfxrOgH8>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvddvuddgtdekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeejtdevtdevvdejgffgfe evleeljedviefgteffleduteduheefuddvheejteektdenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhf rdhorhhgpdhirhhtfhdrohhrghdpgedtihhrthhfrdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidr nhgvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:vY-IYIwRanFae_BKnCM2tu22knuyhRyuAZlFuISUOAR0HonV7e_2Cw> <xmx:vY-IYMOs4G8J9209EcUSvgVV7GMQabRWcdPTDvS6-SPPfeee5-a9eQ> <xmx:vY-IYF-F6Bf2DqqwHI_OC5ZaxaXXv6Va406TROh7VzIbBxwK6o4_OQ> <xmx:vo-IYIJMhxYOuQNH0-qT483eB2axuMdeIvIT6AMvfPN5TDXipmGS_w>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 11F314E00B3; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 18:27:09 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-403-gbc3c488b23-fm-20210419.005-gbc3c488b
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <6007a2a3-4dad-43cc-868e-d662470c5e4f@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNtwV9pYVNKw+Um-fdaW=MM=mzoA59v28xVgvASaBW_iQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMr0u6njjMkmmAhFg3t+0EJOuh=q4towqi4j=hk9-russTbXDA@mail.gmail.com> <CANduzxC-2RU90LECfVPLHy68NSjXNwG0aSdDh+42m_vF5pnDaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNtwV9pYVNKw+Um-fdaW=MM=mzoA59v28xVgvASaBW_iQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:26:32 +1000
From: "Martin Thomson" <mt@lowentropy.net>
To: cfrg@irtf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/tvWrgcyFRpsfVPIzekymRCMlkSY>
Subject: Re: [CFRG] Call for adoption for draft-wood-cfrg-rsa-blind-signatures
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: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 22:27:18 -0000

Ekr covered my views on this also.

I am not sure that this is the ideal design, but I find being able to use existing PSS verifiers to be appealing.

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021, at 02:44, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I haven't studied this draft in detail, but I believe that it would be 
> good for this WG to work on blind signatures, as they are a primitive 
> with a lot of applicability.
> 
> In general, I'd probably be more inclined to select blind BLS for new 
> applications, but there are certainly going to be a lot of settings in 
> which people don't have pairing code, and in those cases, it seems like 
> this draft would be valuable.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 8:47 AM Steven Valdez 
> <svaldez=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> > I think it would be useful to have this work adopted and eventually standardized, various protocols/APIs seem to be building on blind signature style schemes, and having a draft here would help in trying to unify or at least provide guidance for how to use blind signatures in a more consistent manner. In the PrivacyPass space, this sort of scheme might be useful for some of the use cases that need public verifiability, where there's currently still a gap on how PrivacyPass implements public verifiability.
> > 
> > Generally supportive of this draft, and would be happy to help give feedback on it.
> > 
> > -Steven
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:21 AM Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev <smyshsv@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Dear CFRG participants,
> >> As a follow-up to the discussion at the recent CFRG meeting, this email commences a 3-week call for adoption for "RSA Blind Signatures" draft (draft-wood-cfrg-rsa-blind-signatures-00) that will end on April 9th 2021:
> >> 
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wood-cfrg-rsa-blind-signatures/
> >> 
> >> 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. Please reply to this email (or in exceptional circumstances you can email CFRG chairs directly at cfrg-chairs@ietf.org).
> >> 
> >> Thank you,
> >> Stanislav (for the chairs)
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CFRG mailing list
> >> CFRG@irtf.org
> >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > Steven Valdez |	 Chrome Privacy Sandbox |	 svaldez@google.com |	 210-692-4742 <tel:(210)%20692-4742>
> > _______________________________________________
> > CFRG mailing list
> > CFRG@irtf.org
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
> _______________________________________________
> CFRG mailing list
> CFRG@irtf.org <mailto:CFRG%40irtf.org>
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>