Re: [jose] Some requirements and non-requirements
Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com> Tue, 20 December 2011 16:24 UTC
Return-Path: <mamille2@cisco.com>
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 2706621F8B42 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 08:24:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 q6RuyvZeafFu for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 08:24:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67EA821F8B48 for <jose@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 08:24:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=mamille2@cisco.com; l=6339; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1324398263; x=1325607863; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=KDM/6EuXbX1qRe+fl141dnbTvy1ImIRu4PYjpht7ETY=; b=lQIc0CGFRN3keZKPW62azzuUh9eXp9HtG11sKujgXkVSpxOSIVYmnlai sK0iUBAbvw/SZJEd+Iwdp9jIGezJT6ehb3EMyXNGR1b8IDnm5QME9CdQA LJqOZWwsvzRImMcWQepOEaQ9uno8I4rEdhkpeBapeQq3iwOLXgP/GLe7s Y=;
X-Files: smime.p7s : 2214
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsAAAJi18E6rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbAA6CZsrjTyDGYEFgXIBAQEDARIBZgUHBAsOAwQBARYSBwJECQgGEyKHWJhfAZ48iFQSgkNjBIg3hW2GW5JQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.71,382,1320624000"; d="p7s'?scan'208"; a="21686276"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Dec 2011 16:24:23 +0000
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-249.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-249.cisco.com [64.101.72.249]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pBKGOMo8022481; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:24:22 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-4-346197880"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
From: Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <00ff01cca6f4$063bdfc0$12b39f40$@augustcellars.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:24:25 -0700
Message-Id: <5C03BFDE-FE94-42F1-B36E-7ACFDD794F67@cisco.com>
References: <C50E4C20-762B-4B91-BB2C-1202FF3BBD4B@cisco.com> <00ff01cca6f4$063bdfc0$12b39f40$@augustcellars.com>
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] Some requirements and non-requirements
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: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:24:24 -0000
On Nov 19, 2011, at 12:46, Jim Schaad wrote: > Which of the encryption algorithms do you already have specified in XMPP and > thus would probably prefer. Do you use the GCM modes and if so do you use > them in AEAD (authenticated encryption with associated data) or just as AE? > > Jim > To date, we don't have any specific algorithms defined. The draft <draft-miller-3923bis> has an MTI of AES_CBC_128 with an application-level MAC (HMAC_SHA_256). I'm personally hesitant to require GCM because it does not appear to be widely deployed yet. - m&m Matt Miller - <mamille2@cisco.com> Collaboration Software Group - Cisco Systems, Inc. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Matt Miller >> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 1:09 AM >> To: jose@ietf.org >> Subject: [jose] Some requirements and non-requirements >> >> A number of us had a short discussion in the hall in Taipei not-too-long > ago, >> and came up with some needs (and non-needs) that differ from the current >> proposals. Some of this was stated in the meeting, some may not have >> been. My explanation and requirements/non-requirements follow; I'll let >> the others send their own comments. >> >> We (XMPP) have an asynchronous protocol that involves multiple hops (most >> often no more than 3), and have a need to protect this information end-to- >> end. However, the end-points are not guaranteed to be singular; the >> protocol allows for a single account or bare JID to have multiple > simultaneous >> resources involved. It is possible that the sender will not know > precisely >> which resource will ultimately receive a stanza, but it is possible that > such a >> sender will know of all the possible recipients, and have asymmetric keys > for >> each of these recipient end-points. Since one of our stanza kinds is > intended >> for conversations, it would be desired (but not absolutely necessary) to > be >> able to reuse a session key across multiple discreet payloads. >> >> Further, authenticity or integrity of the data is not always important. > For >> various reasons, there is assurance in the asserted identity of each > entity. >> That's not to say it's *never* important, but that there exists other > factors >> that make it less important in a lot (I would say most) cases. >> >> With all of that, we have the following requirements: >> >> * Support multiple known recipients >> * data needs to be standalone XML safe >> >> And the following non-requirements: >> >> * data need not always be signed >> * data need not be URL safe >> * data need not be tightly coupled/interleaved with the meta-data >> >> >> - m&m >> >> Matt Miller - <mamille2@cisco.com> >> Collaboration Software Group - Cisco Systems, Inc. >> >> > >
- Re: [jose] Some requirements and non-requirements Richard Alimi
- Re: [jose] Some requirements and non-requirements Jim Schaad
- [jose] Some requirements and non-requirements Matt Miller
- Re: [jose] Some requirements and non-requirements Matt Miller