Re: [Lake] [Secdispatch] LAKE next steps

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 26 August 2019 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: lake@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lake@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7278F120838 for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 VZgGdoRAXMZp for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x135.google.com (mail-lf1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FFC812011C for <lake@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x135.google.com with SMTP id x3so13396161lfc.0 for <lake@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BMKriv5VP1VNTFFVbx8NRNDMnWDenjkwEElNoT8jafs=; b=01/MvVRm8EYfv+L2H0Apq6HN8cqex2qkYr0G14WBoWBgbELa0CiV1NJ3JUo8YM2GuN 7ScyVHLpSMXaDBi7CH3WUaGwWRPxE4Vm0Pa2L4EI9QG1B8pk7qR5+XqneYkN3GyJ4lP9 GZn0PswCvePCxRUdZejic5duITduhZt6Jx96ogM1t6qciVbuc2IYGzNoqQEHSR3p/vRK CibcN/KgaK+T5tzcrcSMaRnKAnJjSUP0sZlumowCwjcCGobdnDcNV00bWiBE0VVw7GM/ akYI8vkMXF+bPLhbSqrTcwJukoMOQcVSqOR7V1+9zyPNvJqU2QPoR/x3Bv4w7QLDQzIl tQNA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BMKriv5VP1VNTFFVbx8NRNDMnWDenjkwEElNoT8jafs=; b=et47EXzMgg+OwFBQryIBqDC3Yl/9nmxGbcdQJ6GsS0/zr7sBkDvVWxLxnZ42YyVWQ0 iunKsDp+54Gv9K2NNKaDcHMLbWmmZm0raqMFH+NfDIhzsG6f5xtKAFwYMsdwpy+clHCr srRPXQ1/YQXbMbSruQthfE8dVNgk/jxyUpHmNqrMa04mbuwnzL0uGUgESspD+TDskaaU F4ItwrxyQLfmwJZvYx46M5Nc+ujiWrdYTA9Xho3rZBBXVKsDjWliGZUmQ0ryhLRWHcuI YtHV9bPN/ptuqkeb8FuYxBrYxykslllUxs6JgboMtZeJDwMF2vuNngTGdbU8pjydE3mx XAKA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVInSzM6kO+K96GumcG7sX3glMbz9nx6+0qRq7Bl2yQ+sN4wOKl myLPXDANTtKu+A+LI7U4s/87drikrqq9ZYypPoKB/Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz7SDweGYrucbM1G/029WwFDriOw7J1GtC5geHKl4XkBKVh/Eqlhv92eegWJNk29oF4EuKnZtctuI8dqUUWewU=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:51a3:: with SMTP id f3mr11635358lfk.94.1566853098486; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190820155006.GE60855@kduck.mit.edu> <DED9B6C1-2E61-4C20-822D-4F22C848EC1E@ericsson.com> <20190826204642.GM84368@kduck.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20190826204642.GM84368@kduck.mit.edu>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 21:57:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CABcZeBP4D2hN7D-2sQm1tJag0F8Bw-xtd995EpeYg3Tr1cm5wA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: Göran Selander <goran.selander@ericsson.com>, "lake@ietf.org" <lake@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000059d3ed05910b6ada"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/-Vvp5Iyl-FgG8_LxYeCX2IDbPOQ>
Subject: Re: [Lake] [Secdispatch] LAKE next steps
X-BeenThere: lake@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Lightweight Authenticated Key Exchange <lake.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lake>, <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lake/>
List-Post: <mailto:lake@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lake>, <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 20:58:23 -0000

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 9:47 PM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:

> [Note: secdispatch@ to bcc]
>
> Hi Göran,
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 01:27:49PM +0000, Göran Selander wrote:
> > Hi Ben and Roman,
> >
> > If I understand right, the proposal is - in one sentence - to work both
> on a lightweight authenticated key exchange for OSCORE in the LAKE WG, and
> on a compact variant of TLS in the TLS WG. This sounds like a good way
> forward, since an optimal solution to one of the problems is most likely
> not optimal (or even suitable) for the other, and optimization is one of
> the reasons for doing this work in the first place.
> >
> > The proposed charter looks fine, I only have one comment on the text,
> see below. In particular I don't think there is any need to further detail
> requirements in the charter since those can be agreed with the listed
> stakeholders as part of the work.
> >
> > Excerpt from proposed charter:
> >
> > 'The working group will collaborate and coordinate with other IETF WGs
> > such as ACE, CORE, 6TISCH, and LPWAN to understand and validate the
> > requirements and solution.  The WG will also evaluate work from
> > the TLS WG and derivatives thereof, and draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe.'
> >
> > My comment is on the last sentence above. I already commented on this
> sentence in a previous draft of the charter:
> >
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/xJTkOA6zfU0TcQPMYevg8IBUSVk
>
> Oops, I'm sorry I didn't notice the comment from the previous round, when
> preparing this draft text.  Are you proposing to just drop the "and
> derivatives thereof"?  I believe that the intent last time around was to
> include what became cTLS, though at that time it was unclear what home
> could be found for it.  At this point it looks more likely like the TLS WG
> could do it, though it's not decided for sure, so the cross-WG dependencies
> remain a little annoying.  That said, I think that the proposed LAKE
> charter should only consider output from the TLS WG, not
> work-still-in-progress at the point when a decision is to be made.
>

Ben,

If I understand what you are saying here, I don't think that this is the
right approach.

Imagine that cTLS were a totally new proposal, with no relationship to TLS.
Then it would be reasonable for the WG to consider it based solely on being
an individual draft. I don't understand why the bar should be *higher* if
there is already WG work on it.

-Ekr