Re: Escalation: time commitment to fix *production* security bugs for BLS RFC v4?

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Mon, 26 April 2021 14:29 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC8B03A21A7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 07:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
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 9jpzOfszg-cU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 07:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EE643A21A3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 07:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050095.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13QEPjgd011713; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 15:28:54 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=IYxb8fevHzDP82O6W+4Vv7+ai9P7K8mW3hh3fWVS48E=; b=MD7QJpKgghokb6V5x6ZNOgudj+yqUJgGpj6ZRAho58IntbhjjAcUFqr60NVhwCN6Egk8 ThcB63CYFXQpIdnp33SPPKntbFYjhT3arkaYJim8uCaoZL+iHgbis8iiV7es0jMh8ZQc X/xsB7aJ4u3WG2Pv/HRallLjMi4iGE4YiP2aZHJGqVVHkNAH4DDa9FPzRb7MYq2b+uPF ejOY2RoO9vJr+zmAXEYRwVXAIHd100yULkNfLSnEIbWI2OtNN8ZTmnL67lmweTkU0wcF GjCNBBcO80IkVCyBL7N0rV8OeBEsrRdC/edwmvPIWmUTdT2CCHu6JYQX/KaKlWHmRZWB +g==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint1 (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [184.51.33.18] (may be forged)) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 385htpvg0e-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 15:28:53 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 13QEJoar024404; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 10:28:52 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.53]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com with ESMTP id 384enyn4we-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 10:28:52 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 10:28:51 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.015; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 10:28:51 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Quan Thoi Minh Nguyen <msuntmquan@gmail.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Escalation: time commitment to fix *production* security bugs for BLS RFC v4?
Thread-Topic: Escalation: time commitment to fix *production* security bugs for BLS RFC v4?
Thread-Index: AQHXOp7CED1hBYcbt0qgYZzZVN06lKrG27UA
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 14:28:51 +0000
Message-ID: <C2025926-ECD9-4846-BE36-9B243000DF5F@akamai.com>
References: <CAAEB6g=tU=MF1_QKduEN55ft0rWe+7x0wBbywS083fJrjzP=XA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAEB6gn+QWuCX4BxCJuofz6JF6amaPtWiDtg7ZAmRT9FwaX8vA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAEB6gn+QWuCX4BxCJuofz6JF6amaPtWiDtg7ZAmRT9FwaX8vA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.48.21041102
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.27.164.43]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C2025926ECD94846BE369B243000DF5Fakamaicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-26_07:2021-04-26, 2021-04-26 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=986 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104260112
X-Proofpoint-GUID: 8ljZDRXA1mv4Ah7NDcrqHwFZUjaWskwO
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 8ljZDRXA1mv4Ah7NDcrqHwFZUjaWskwO
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-26_07:2021-04-26, 2021-04-26 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=924 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104260113
X-Agari-Authentication-Results: mx.akamai.com; spf=${SPFResult} (sender IP is 184.51.33.18) smtp.mailfrom=rsalz@akamai.com smtp.helo=prod-mail-ppoint1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/FN087PGXcYD-GiUtX9BoijswzFY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 14:29:02 -0000

You have been told several times, by CFRG participants and others, that if someone implements a draft.  For example, see https://www.ietf.org/standards/ids/ .  In particular: “Internet-drafts have no formal status, and are subject to change or removal at any time.”

You cannot pressure authors to update a draft because some people have deployed it in production and there is a bug.

In particular, your note refers to the draft several times as a “standard” and you call them “RFC authors.”  Both of those are incorrect.  It is a draft, not an RFC, and not a standard.