IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Gen-art] Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-01

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sat, 10 August 2024 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AD42C14F6A7; Sat, 10 Aug 2024 12:15:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=vigilsec.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J8bf6rFajfyJ; Sat, 10 Aug 2024 12:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1130C14F5F8; Sat, 10 Aug 2024 12:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C14CC1911AF; Sat, 10 Aug 2024 15:15:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (syn-047-133-109-246.res.spectrum.com [47.133.109.246]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 51675191A4D; Sat, 10 Aug 2024 15:15:00 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.700.6.1.1\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <172324324253.349114.14034852553770042967@dt-datatracker-6df4c9dcf5-t2x2k>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 15:14:49 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2A7231E0-AFED-4F68-BDBE-0C0B6D0355E1@vigilsec.com>
References: <172324324253.349114.14034852553770042967@dt-datatracker-6df4c9dcf5-t2x2k>
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.700.6.1.1)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=vigilsec.com; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=pair-202402141609; bh=2hPZEIVPhvsS23vbor3QcayWUJQWAKHtceEmYJky9S0=; b=jKJsv3Pt9aGmyUA9Cswp4Dj9UhGnT1eHyv8p6sOJI+FVBzCG3kgsRKgtieyqNDalgKdHx2lz0mNOUNmjY9gauQhETXFw+1X4xLlQyZW6HVeaUFwac4xBH4q6BdWl3X6KFAClmzQ822gFTB6+vptFnzJzDZht0+tNakCTBIiFv88je46hALZlii3Eswm6LO0UhfqCxyjcUyTM+WuZQiTW2SqokM2+YCO1rMg8b+FQLLoc6hxX8kDebHgrdsaK+jbYXCcvAZzkc4AVTXA837eHGy4udW1HDH3A/qAhvR7FvJVCWFEtA+RJj6IHXv23R2k3lfA1qC5njEQRYq8FO/eOLA==
X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.11 on 66.39.134.11
Message-ID-Hash: FADZKMDN2O344YVRLN2UOV3LEIVBRC2E
X-Message-ID-Hash: FADZKMDN2O344YVRLN2UOV3LEIVBRC2E
X-MailFrom: housley@vigilsec.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-gen-art.ietf.org-0; header-match-gen-art.ietf.org-1; header-match-gen-art.ietf.org-2; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis.all@ietf.org, Last Call <last-call@ietf.org>, Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX and SMIME Discussion List <spasm@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Gen-art] Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-01
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/LMf3tmg7MyzaMvznMayJ6BCIms0>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:gen-art-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gen-art-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gen-art-leave@ietf.org>

> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Section 1.4 describes the change regarding the KEY field in the
> pk-HSS-LMS-HashSig definition to reflect "no ASN.1 wrapping for the public
> key". I am not an expert in this domain, but would like to know what are the
> reasons behind removing the ASN.1 wrapping? Does RFC8708 imply ASN.1 wrapping?

Linda:

Experience from the hackathon shows it is better without the wrapping.

Russ

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status