Re: [Cfrg] Time to recharter CFRG as a working group? Was: Re: [secdir] ISE seeks help with some crypto drafts

Mathy Vanhoef <> Mon, 11 March 2019 09:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D9513104A for <>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 02:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BkWaLPrLb4Dv for <>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 02:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04DB1131055 for <>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 02:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e7so3053758oia.8 for <>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 02:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=eoMwbqPNW35+PvN9l6eZGxLgGb381umfC5+L4jASYR8=; b=ZkCv561e71OuTB3pWFV9aRHgwNaorPYZMJNZ2nzzrTtb+Qslnsth86g2yfl5+s4ZoV 08BF4dYe50gxQOj1fDXShtt8sQbakKKEeZbe8vJfTMbCK7/g82ZAI8Z0N82As5nZh1+z EE56dl2Pba5i1hLkESKVMatZ9u/E9DtCNOlXoAe6y41tZ53hJH4Hy7CLUl3lxuHxTVV7 +WXXwqZpmwvnTPsd5SK5Lu+bSqJPWko940YE53Jlpm5WmGquU0R5WRSIH4UzHhfHw/bt M1qXjKGg8waFZiCUITqlMfkkMqTfQgBzU0fB+yzRzeQi1hUSWS0CR8MZo0fnSuCYNLJf laJg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=eoMwbqPNW35+PvN9l6eZGxLgGb381umfC5+L4jASYR8=; b=hxRdZZY8FuDoSH4m92JJoBMr0zH/EFVX9rcMxlIuMXdty55o4KTyxwbAA8xx9JIDIv vIWCXkZK2buVAy2UYcKdCpxaMoWVkjc3INvbPulLZcfyHxahaV3t1EUHz7Zdn5gsWCrO cPLzmNZJrWmO675b8WCAy4RLNLp3KWkjplXy4zIWGvMPIerhMVMIsr0JL16/1jePV3ee m4WI8Y0pEb7DDm8E6ZGbqRey+im1NA1NWdM0N9vr4n18UauZ47dNiDwmX1e+vTwQjq9+ WHc4J3Bxt7xYzXAgO3qg3vLXTX+CkbH2ccWQwLPCAnEbYnY/4EsXppLY6qIvuMwcMnHP QOtw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUjXX/mtB+rBPgx0dOA7poY3Y+dK58IqYT2Hw1i47SNffApS2pZ k2eYdZsOJoPe4QPy9L2FVNxOffpxuteud/TTABY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxGRYTuo4ilsrdxHdKSexWTpv/uFSB/eRW2fxR+OgVgCJXgCizZ6Kw90/cKY5c/Liphk8scrQYA3PzAj76A76w=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:ecd5:: with SMTP id k204mr15360692oih.153.1552296452223; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 02:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Mathy Vanhoef <>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:27:21 +0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Tony Arcieri <>
Cc: "StJohns, Michael" <>, secdir <>, CFRG <>, "RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel)" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009ef9580583ce2ed2"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Time to recharter CFRG as a working group? Was: Re: [secdir] ISE seeks help with some crypto drafts
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 09:27:45 -0000

Regarding the Dragonfly datapoint: this protocol already got added to the
802.11 standard in 2011 under the 802.11s amendment. As far as I know, I
only got discussed by the CFRG after this.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:20 AM Tony Arcieri <> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 3:46 PM StJohns, Michael <>
> wrote:
>> In recent years, the CFRG has produced documents that are for lack of a
>> better phrase de facto standards.  The rate of document production of the
>> CFRG mimics more closely that of a WG than the other extant RGs AFAICT.
>> As an RG the CFRG isn’t permitted to publish standards track documents, nor
>> is the IESG or the ISE permitted or constrained to require a conflict
>> review on the documents the CFRG does produce.  [the latter comment is my
>> understanding of the rules of the research stream - it may be flawed, but
>> the purpose of RGs is supposed to be looking at futures and that by
>> definition shouldn’t be conflicting with the nows].
> An interesting datapoint on this is Dragonfly key exchange, published as
> RFC 7664, has now been incorporated into the Wifi Alliance's WPA3 standard:
> I will preface the following statement by saying that my criticisms of
> Dragonfly on the CFRG list at the time were misinformed and due to a lack
> of understanding, and would now call it "okay" (and many of my concerns
> were assuaged after it received a security proof).. However, I think it's
> fair to say that as a non-standards document, it has something of a sordid
> history:
> I think if there were a WG chartered specifically with a standards-track
> document for what the next generation key exchange to be used for use cases
> similar to and including, but not limited to WiFi were, my best guess is we
> could've done better than Dragonfly. I'm not sure why the Wifi Alliance
> chose it specifically, but it seems the CFRG was treated at least in part
> as a bar the algorithm must pass for incorporation into their standards,
> and for a standard of such importance I guess what I'm saying is I wish
> that bar were higher.
> --
> Tony Arcieri
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list