Re: [Curdle] WG status

Damien Miller <djm@mindrot.org> Mon, 01 May 2017 04:02 UTC

Return-Path: <djm@mindrot.org>
X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1562127275 for <curdle@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 oRIan8ja2gNF for <curdle@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newmailhub.uq.edu.au (mailhub2.soe.uq.edu.au [130.102.132.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB88129473 for <curdle@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.soe.uq.edu.au (smtp1.soe.uq.edu.au [10.138.113.40]) by newmailhub.uq.edu.au (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v413xkFY014651; Mon, 1 May 2017 13:59:46 +1000
Received: from mailhub.eait.uq.edu.au (hazel.eait.uq.edu.au [130.102.60.17]) by smtp1.soe.uq.edu.au (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v413xjtC010943 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 1 May 2017 13:59:45 +1000
Received: from natsu.mindrot.org (natsu.mindrot.org [130.102.96.2]) by mailhub.eait.uq.edu.au (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPS id v413xib7017949 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 1 May 2017 13:59:44 +1000 (AEST)
Received: by natsu.mindrot.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6A65FA4F39; Mon, 1 May 2017 13:59:44 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by natsu.mindrot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A51A4F38; Mon, 1 May 2017 13:59:44 +1000 (AEST)
Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:59:44 +1000 (AEST)
From: Damien Miller <djm@mindrot.org>
To: Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>
cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, curdle <curdle@ietf.org>, denis bider <denisbider.ietf@gmail.com>, =?KOI8-R?B?8tXNxc4g8MXU0s/X?= <pkixssh@roumenpetrov.info>
In-Reply-To: <CADZyTk=3pZb40upVHPuG8hYEWOCpu2hhdyBpiZ9t5+v2_AYzAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSO.2.20.1705011358080.2134@natsu.mindrot.org>
References: <CADZyTkkd-JpsE89z=P10Y0esc1NCZydD5NqMTs8E5xUz-DMT_g@mail.gmail.com> <58F475B5.4090504@roumenpetrov.info> <CADPMZDBjgpzMKp1UJqWMC_xRZpfce=wOOsE51HwY2dEO73kKeA@mail.gmail.com> <CADPMZDBS3yFxWmioNRV+Vx-ThTPW636ydr1fz76vNP52DjAtZA@mail.gmail.com> <1778170c976e43569d34f051bba51f4c@ustx2ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <CADZyTknNkAWHUeqk-BQqYU_6jTGVgPurhqF7=Am7Xk7OT=D-gQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADZyTk=3pZb40upVHPuG8hYEWOCpu2hhdyBpiZ9t5+v2_AYzAQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (BSO 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="0-857715075-1493611184=:2134"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.73 on UQ Mailhub
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.75 on 130.102.60.17
X-UQ-FilterTime: 1493611187
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/curdle/MRt4-WAfWkGwNDAmZ36OrxeEuek>
Subject: Re: [Curdle] WG status
X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." <curdle.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/curdle>, <mailto:curdle-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/curdle/>
List-Post: <mailto:curdle@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:curdle-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/curdle>, <mailto:curdle-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 04:02:31 -0000

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017, Daniel Migault wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> So far we have not received many inputs and I would like to make sure we
> understand Romen's concern. My understanding of the concerned raised by
> Romen is that specifying signature algorithms may complexity the ways Public
> Key Algorithm registries are designated.  However it looks to me one reason
> is that we are moving from implicit signature scheme to explicit ones.
> 
> Romen please re-state your issues with the draft, clearly expose the issues
> as well as the alternate you would fine acceptable.

Speaking as a maintainer of one of the implementations (OpenSSH) that
has support for the draft, I don't think the draft needs changing.
In particular, altering the "server-sig-algs" message on the wire
has zero implications for registries and will only break working
implementations.

-d