Re: [CFRG] Can I have a review of draft-fluhrer-lms-more-parm-sets?

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 08 February 2021 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 05FC73A0E17 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 07:10:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 74c7TIDfOE6M for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 07:10:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F1463A0E1C for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 07:10:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B80D1300B6E for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 10:10:52 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id NlcUQSZbG4BA for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 10:10:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 580BD300B45 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 10:10:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B09C96CE-DFFB-415C-ACA0-977020711D4F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 10:10:52 -0500
References: <BN7PR11MB264152C19ECEFD79A61E7DDDC18F9@BN7PR11MB2641.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
To: IRTF CFRG <cfrg@irtf.org>
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR11MB264152C19ECEFD79A61E7DDDC18F9@BN7PR11MB2641.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-Id: <0F708F7B-1A0B-4966-9B7C-9E34A5688C8E@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/whDx-g8C5PBPe74cCFJw1BgiPxo>
Subject: Re: [CFRG] Can I have a review of draft-fluhrer-lms-more-parm-sets?
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: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 15:10:57 -0000

I have reviewed the document, and I would like to see it move forward quickly.  SUIT could really use this.

Russ


> On Feb 8, 2021, at 9:39 AM, Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) <sfluhrer=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  
>    Quynh Dang and I are trying to reserve IANA code points for the additional parameter sets within draft-fluhrer-lms-more-parm_sets.  The goal of these parameter sets is to reduce the signature size (by about a third on average) while maintaining a reasonably conservative security level (192 bits of security).
>  
>   One requirement for this to happen is found in the text of RFC 8554, which states (in section 8, IANA Considerations):
>  
>    Additions to these registries require that a specification be
>    documented in an RFC or another permanent and readily available
>    reference in sufficient detail that interoperability between
>    independent implementations is possible [RFC8126].  IANA MUST verify
>    that all applications for additions to these registries have first
>    been reviewed by the IRTF Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG).
>  
>    I am formally requesting such a review take place.
>  
>    Thank you