Re: [Crypto-panel] Request for review: draft-ribose-openpgp-oscca-01

Bjoern Tackmann <> Thu, 04 January 2018 13:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC1112D832 for <>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 05:41:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 ZL97KwRIqGPc for <>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 05:41:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 472DD12D7ED for <>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 05:41:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id g191so575358ywe.7 for <>; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 05:41:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MODBiaw7ePkqZyGyDVpohDoAJIrcc2bREQoiH3NuffM=; b=i3whO9WyH053ijOhEi7v3leq6ECObx96p4Q7Hfc8YZV/+8/WWVG9f+bdMo3vK1PCF5 /uLBqp6L4MeVfqAi7RiNIVkTEPFKgReRGlCmy8PrGINXaHJtt7bFRjLcEBbf1sisphmu dkWa9WnrU8jqHaNwNP6vYCoJORBXujVeSutEws1AzwLxkclpeYariuPhYm/gQafRX9xn hRomOcPbQ9D8PmM2f6XPupkgT/VoiW84jDc/vjFn0ry53KNfGnuaT0sVLn+2iqQvNG/V YxSyKKQ6u3aQqtOvGFMRrypE888zCBuo6P6XdcWjcrZPaUGIdS5e3D0LvFLmU0szFyrP M5LA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MODBiaw7ePkqZyGyDVpohDoAJIrcc2bREQoiH3NuffM=; b=S0QiMDa/4v9CyvcsFF4dwoo6vVcx9Oip0LQTdEGCJnRqO817fGctBpqmrvSZkhIAO/ 1HAYDXhLWfDP5+dMA9x574Cq8+UKwnlt1VnRZKvS6IPEvdO1qiSt0eTpa2AHIFvIhqxb UcPHwmoRMity+UdnfV7wiFFjxzqiCcnzK4jZww9ixxGOTYnY5WHFrJNMbedPlmg6Veh3 XVprmd5aswl7Ay3cxL3TZj6p0OIxUEBJMJnXwXQSnegNBFicY309LA8mv7aKD6j2l+nU NndIy2d+8/2LNmnH1GW3zLtAseTB7MV0d2sOVHieUuyHXellsubJ3yHYrBzDvbA6zjrq nizw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mK3ohl2Y9mMkJpgM3b9xMWaHAvI1N+0Xokm9e/m+o1IH693Np4x yCkWy5mVD2mb3spGQchve45CSk9f2XXBgzKHLs0Ocg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBos0WUuKhEqynPrKnA7Y9VAsGfN1Fb3zUcJD/Hrzt4WoAK+aDA+snMimD/oZpKxR1zebMYmjHyDlL0UoOPeEGP4=
X-Received: by with SMTP id f184mr4178938ywh.511.1515073274311; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 05:41:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 05:41:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Bjoern Tackmann <>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:41:13 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Ronald Tse <>
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <>, "" <>, Nancy Cam-Winget <>, "" <>, Tim Polk <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c14676e532c2f0561f37c53"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Crypto-panel] Request for review: draft-ribose-openpgp-oscca-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 13:41:19 -0000

Dear Ronald,

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Ronald Tse <> wrote:

> If I may clarify, the SM3 and SM4 Internet-Drafts already provide detailed
> descriptions of the algorithms and also include reference implementations,
> and are ready for CFRG review. The SM2 draft is currently being updated
> (apologize for the delay…), and should provide a similar level of detail to
> those two when the update is complete.

yes, I am aware of that. The SM3 and SM4 drafts were helpful and seemed to
be in good shape already, and you had told me that you were working on the
SM2 draft. This was not at all meant to be negative, I just think it would
be advantageous to have these documents as RFCs together with the one I
reviewed, so that one can have a full specification available.

> Some idiosyncrasies, as you have rightly pointed out, come from the
> definition of the SM2 scheme itself and the OpenPGP standard, so there’s
> not much we can do about. SM2 is a set of three algorithms that include
> digital signatures, public key encryption and also key exchange. That’s why
> the SM2 draft included a section on key exchange — it was not included in
> the OpenPGP draft because it is not suitable for usage in the OpenPGP
> context. The SM2/SM3/SM4 documents exist independently from the OpenPGP
> document that is being reviewed.

The draft I reviewed [1] had a Section 4.2 called "SM2 Key Exchange
Protocol", and I did understand why it was there. It did not seem to be
necessary to follow the subsequent parts.