Re: [IPsec] Last Call: <draft-kivinen-ipsecme-secure-password-framework-01.txt> (Secure Password Framework for IKEv2) to Informational RFC

Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 29 July 2011 21:47 UTC

Return-Path: <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F79621F8AD8 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 14:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 br-22O9jXbKP for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 14:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BBAA21F8ACE for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 14:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so105439wyj.31 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 14:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GukURfocq1R/ovo7RgCotugzM5uwulsRKRaQPyx6GxY=; b=xTitXNjRR+cGPUuh69Jp9HFTv2A5Zy5juZujHjZ9S514ZH0yRgFFdK80aomOSzesDJ w0z0WkIZgm7n7MsCblGqNQnitg7pylFhBfLtiqyBl1NiVIATpc8Sw5FDc0EYFFCZhAOc Xk3xPxSPudJ2fEPaRyy9H6F4aNvs8ANtgbwoM=
Received: by 10.227.55.142 with SMTP id u14mr393271wbg.87.1311976040618; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 14:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.5] (bzq-79-179-237-205.red.bezeqint.net [79.179.237.205]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id em16sm2076653wbb.67.2011.07.29.14.47.18 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 29 Jul 2011 14:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E332A65.3030804@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 00:47:17 +0300
From: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110627 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
References: <20110727164459.29853.48303.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7C54FFE2-FFE0-4B4C-BF7E-142A6B10DF6B@checkpoint.com> <78B594BA-9406-44A2-AB8E-0BF5A425AEC1@vpnc.org> <7828ad8727dd860ccd6c5eb5acd52c19.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <4E30F876.70200@gmail.com> <bfc0170030270acb5124c61f7770f46b.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
In-Reply-To: <bfc0170030270acb5124c61f7770f46b.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Last Call: <draft-kivinen-ipsecme-secure-password-framework-01.txt> (Secure Password Framework for IKEv2) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:47:22 -0000

Hi Dan,

there are three drafts on the table, and they are NOT identical. Crypto 
protocols, as you know well, are a mixture of cryptography and 
engineering. While the engineering on all three is very similar, the 
cryptography is not.
I do not wish to offend, but I believe cryptography is better left to 
professional cryptographers. I am not a cryptographer; the primary 
author of draft-kuegler-ipsecme-pace-ikev2 is.

Thanks,
     Yaron

On 07/28/2011 03:48 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
> On Wed, July 27, 2011 10:49 pm, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
>> Unfortunately Dan cannot accept that there may be objective, non
>> political reasons for the group not to adopt his work. Which is the
>> reason why three alternative proposals were published several months
>> after his proposed PAKE solution.
>    Well there certainly wasn't a technical reason. In fact, after
> delaying things for several months what we ended up with were 3
> drafts that were effectively _identical_ from a technical point of view.
> That is the prime reason that the group (and later the AD) could not
> agree on which one to choose.