IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [jose] Minutes

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Mon, 25 March 2013 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC75121F86F7 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.218
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.793, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vgiN3t6OqquL for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22e.google.com (mail-ob0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87EA021F86F4 for <jose@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 16so6472792obc.19 for <jose@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Kvf0vwCDr0HIur/LIicKTSKINoBdoc3hsGvyHyALgI0=; b=kqfYfDrQRnhIMm5pzwyFdO+ED0V2/IB3KtXGd3aQQPeGVUKfeIN565+uPSxNUgrRfS 0OYe0EbCJacqfSocz0ogwzlfDWenJrSk6bw5c/ueyM15t6vivSexrTP/fv6Q1TWRCbnn ceZMnZ4QwBE/2Lghp/SkqqrqR6yf8BuvuKvTCA5LY9c8XO8TW3vBBQwao+WICrN6t5vw kVJt0SSzRIXXYCJwi1h+T58dMtAZl+4enfXoOrdD4BUm0kIhtit06qIiGj/oXXzZJWlw JaYu3O2bVNTmtmXoOGczjMGs1Xiy+ySyQgfVjlXpBK+CF/596YzNvvhpg7/WNGzHXWs2 lpgg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.9.1 with SMTP id v1mr12205294oea.130.1364249488099; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.172.146 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [192.1.51.16]
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367586714@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <010001ce2739$7eaae070$7c00a150$@augustcellars.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367586714@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:11:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgTzFJNpcWKVQKnESTY9Wtq1wO-1_6jjeZhzM9KgbYm0GA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8fb203181f9ecf04d8c716ea"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn12g1CdLQQwY7AUNtCaJIEuwzaHIj8Y8wZIeAJYkLm3y6/sojYuaZlRpOo3xwhJ5Y0Zyxs
Cc: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] Minutes
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption <jose.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose>
List-Post: <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:11:29 -0000

It's not accurate to say that Issue #4 is not a problem.  We did clarify in
the meeting that the issue could use some re-statement, to clarify that the
issue is the coverage of keys by the integrity check.  So there's still an
issue, namely whether the key needs to be covered by the integrity check.



On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>wrote:

>  I don’t believe that the minutes adequately capture the discussion on
> issue #4 (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/4#).  I would
> revise as follows:****
>
> ** **
>
> Data tracker issue #4 (Impossible to separate wrapped key from encrypted
> data) – John Bradley’s slides pointed out that it **is** possible to
> separate wrapped keys from encrypted data when needed by using the direct
> encryption mode and therefore asked for this issue to be closed, as it is
> based upon a false premise.  Mike Jones also asked for this to be closed on
> this basis, and pointed out that Nat Sakimura had already described the
> problem with this issue in the issue tracker.  Richard asked a question
> about the security analysis of including the wrapped key in the integrity
> calculation - Does the wrapped key need to be included in the integrity
> check or not?  The question will be referred to CFRG but a request for
> possible attack modes being sent to the list is requested.****
>
> ** **
>
> Given that the problem stated in issue #4 was demonstrated to not actually
> be a problem during the discussions, I would ask again that the chairs
> close this one, and update the minutes to reflect this.****
>
> ** **
>
>                                                             Thank you,****
>
>                                                             -- Mike****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Jim Schaad
> *Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2013 1:12 PM
> *To:* jose@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [jose] Minutes****
>
> ** **
>
> Preliminary minutes have been uploaded to the site.  Please review and
> comment back to me if you have disagreements.****
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-jose****
>
> ** **
>
> Note that the minutes have an action list at the bottom of them.****
>
> ** **
>
> Jim****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email