Re: [cicm] CICM BOF Summary
jmitola <jmitola@stevens.edu> Wed, 03 August 2011 12:41 UTC
Return-Path: <jmitola@stevens.edu>
X-Original-To: cicm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cicm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FC4D21F87C7 for <cicm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 05:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IQRcHyvP-6h5 for <cicm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 05:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys009aog111.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog111.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5442121F87C6 for <cicm@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 05:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nexus.stevens.edu ([155.246.14.12]) by na3sys009aob111.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTjlB6Eficyzx/2oyxTycfaLQpcal65qW@postini.com; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 05:41:20 PDT
Received: from [192.168.1.146] (c-76-106-141-63.hsd1.fl.comcast.net [76.106.141.63]) (Authenticated sender: jmitola) by nexus.stevens.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B20C300620 for <cicm@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 08:41:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4E3941E3.5090000@stevens.edu>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 08:41:07 -0400
From: jmitola <jmitola@stevens.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CICM Discussion List <cicm@ietf.org>
References: <F9AB58FA72BAE7449E7723791F6993ED0630A84D03@IMCMBX3.MITRE.ORG>
In-Reply-To: <F9AB58FA72BAE7449E7723791F6993ED0630A84D03@IMCMBX3.MITRE.ORG>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [cicm] CICM BOF Summary
X-BeenThere: cicm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: CICM Discussion List <cicm@ietf.org>
List-Id: CICM Discussion List <cicm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cicm>, <mailto:cicm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cicm>
List-Post: <mailto:cicm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cicm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cicm>, <mailto:cicm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:41:09 -0000
Hi, Lev Is NIST working on a CICM-equivalent standard as a follow-on to FIPS 140-3? Sorry I could not make IETF 81, but I remain interested in the working group's charter and technical work. joe On 8/2/2011 11:06 PM, Novikov, Lev wrote: > Last week we had a BOF at IETF 81. Thanks to all who attended (in-person > and via Jabber). For those who couldn't make it, a summary: > > --- Begin Summary --- > Dan Harkins and Dan Lanz were the BOF Chairs. > > Sean Turner and Stephen Farrell are the Security ADs. > > Vincent Roca presented slides about using CICM in a > High Assurance, High Performance Security Gateway. > Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/slides/cicm-1.pdf > > Lev Novikov presented slides about CICM's logical model and how > security domain separation makes CICM different from other crypto APIs. > Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/slides/cicm-2.pdf > > There were several points of discussion: > > 1. What about existing approaches: > * Why can't you extend PKCS#11 so that crypto operations like > encrypt always return TRUE? > > A few reasons were given: > (a) CICM needs richer semantics (more and different kinds of > inputs) than what is available in PKCS#11. Previous attempts > at extending PKCS#11 became a mess. > (b) Return values can be more complex than just TRUE (e.g., list > of things that went wrong). > > * What about using an existing protocol as an interface? > > CICM could sit under such a protocol; it is also intended manage > the crypto (note the large number of management commands), and not > just the pipe (channel). > > * Which approach, C-style or object-oriented, was intended? The .NET > crypto classes might be suitable for an object-oriented approach. > > CICM is defined in IDL for which one can generate bindings in many > different languages including C, C++, Java, etc. We will have to > investigate the .NET approach further. > > ** There was a request that folks on the list discuss these issues for > the benefit of the community. > > 2. The charter is insufficient for a Working Group: > > * It was noted that there could be two goals: > (a) to produce multi-vendor support for a standard interface > (b) to introduce these concepts into existing IETF protocols > > * The charter appears to be too detailed; it should focus more > on outlining the problem scope well. > > * CICM appears to address requirements that are not well explained > in published documents. > > * How would CICM work with Authenticated Encryption with > Authenticated Data [RFC 5116], TLS, or IPSEC? What are the > consequences on other protocols? > > The major consequence of these points is that we should re-write the > charter and write documents to address the: > * larger problem scope > * logical model (in more generic terms) and requirements > * impact of this logical model on 2-3 existing protocols > * details for an corresponding API (e.g., CICM) > > --- End Summary --- > > More on this to follow. > > Lev > _______________________________________________ > cicm mailing list > cicm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cicm -- Dr. Joseph Mitola III, Fellow of the IEEE DoD SERC Director of Special Projects Distinguished Professor Vice President for the Research Enterprise Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken NJ Cell - 703.314.5709
- [cicm] CICM BOF Summary Novikov, Lev
- Re: [cicm] CICM BOF Summary Kevin W. Wall
- Re: [cicm] CICM BOF Summary jmitola
- Re: [cicm] CICM BOF Summary Novikov, Lev