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

[Feng Hao <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

On 04/01/2014 16:42, "David McGrew" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi Feng,
>
>thanks for your suggestion and comments.   A quick response to your
>suggestion:
>
>On 01/04/2014 10:23 AM, Feng Hao wrote:
>>
>> It will be very helpful to have an open competition among the
>>contemporary
>> PAKEs to choose those that are secure, efficient and patent/loyal-free.
>> That should include both balanced and augmented PAKEs to suit for
>> different application requirements.
>>
>> It will be timely and nice if IETF/CFRG can help coordinate such.
>>
>
>It would be a good idea for the RG to author an RFC describing the
>requirements of PAKE protocols and surveying the existing protocols.
>The RFC could also record the consensus of the RG, if there is one, and
>describe the diversity of opinion otherwise. This is not quite the same
>as a competition, but it would fit easily into the IRTF process.   I
>would expect that there would be multiple authors, probably including
>multiple PAKE protocol authors.   We should also line up some reviewers
>as well.  What do you think?

I think that's an excellent idea. I expect the most difficult part would
be to kick-start the process, so if it can easily fit into the IRTF
process, that will help. In the end, I think some form of competition
between existing PAKEs would be unavoidable, but if we keep the process
open and transparent, the competition should be healthy and beneficial to
everyone. 

>
>As a side note, I personally would also like to see
>guidance/documentation on how PAKEs can best be used, and I agree with
>your comment about bootstrapping authentication.  Replacing a raw
>username/password exchange inside of TLS with a PAKE would be good, and
>using a PAKE for password-based certificate enrollment would be good.
>Replacing certificate based authentication with a PAKE would be not so
>good.

Password-based AKE and PKI-based AKE (e.g., TLS/SSL) are two different
types of key exchange protocols. The former is not meant to replace the
latter, but the two can complement each other.

For the same reason, a balanced PAKE and an augmented PAKE are two types
of PAKEs. They can co-exist as well, suitable for different applications.

I think providing a suite of different types of "secure and efficient" key
agreement protocols is important, so people will have a choice to decide
which one suits their needs.

>
>David