Re: [Lake] Call for adoption for draft-selander-lake-edhoc - respond by June 22

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 24 June 2020 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 E39353A11C9 for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 15:54:37 -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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wVn3QZsBsLMA for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 15:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 6B6023A11C8 for <lake@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 15:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 05OMsWL2031512 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <lake@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 18:54:34 -0400
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 15:54:31 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: lake@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200624225431.GT58278@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <89EA6A63-AB99-4649-9F08-D6FBDE1DEF2F@inria.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <89EA6A63-AB99-4649-9F08-D6FBDE1DEF2F@inria.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/hPcfAsmUeWz6Bn_znrX0aOZY6pU>
Subject: Re: [Lake] Call for adoption for draft-selander-lake-edhoc - respond by June 22
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: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 22:54:38 -0000

Hi all,

In light of some of the directions that the recent discussion on this
thread has gone, I want to take a step back and confirm my understanding of
what it would mean for this adoption call to succeed.

My own personal understanding of the "at most one LAKE" in the charter is
that a decision to go from one candidate output of the WG to zero (and,
presumably, close the WG) could be made at any time prior to the
publication of such a "one LAKE.  Specifically, among the myriad
possibilities that seemed plausible at the time of chartering, one
possibility included (1) the WG reaching consensus on requirements; (2) adopting
EDHOC to polish it, perform enough analysis to assure ourselves that it
provides the requisite security properties, and confirm that it fulfils the
LAKE requirements; and then, (3) as the TLS WG had been doing the same for cTLS
(perhaps modulo "confirm that it fulfils the LAKE requirements"), decide
that the benefits gained by standardizing the new AKE (EDHOC) did not
outweigh the costs of specifying a new AKE on the Internet ecosystem, and
close the WG having not published any documents.

So it remains unclear to me whether we are being asked to consider "should
we spend time to do the polishing/analysis in (2) above", or if we are
being asked to (implicitly) consider something like (3) above, i.e., is
EDHOC or cTLS a better outcome for the greater Internet ecosystem.

While I have not had the opportunity to closely follow the technical
developments on either the EDHOC of cTLS protocols, I do know that
advancements have been made.  Perhaps they are both sufficiently well
developed that we have enough information to answer (3) at this time, but
it's not fully clear to me that we are all in agreement as to what is being
asked.

Thanks,

Ben

On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 03:54:37PM +0200, Mališa Vučinić wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Since we now have a rough consensus on the requirements document, we are proceeding with the selection of the LAKE for OSCORE our working group is chartered to work on. Given:
> 
> - the LAKE working group charter,
> - a wide community support over an extensive period of time for draft-selander-lake-edhoc,
> - adoption of the cTLS draft by the TLS working group where it will be further developed,
> - that no other drafts have been submitted for consideration of the LAKE working group, 
> 
> we are now launching a call for adoption for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-selander-lake-edhoc-01 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-selander-lake-edhoc-01>.
> 
> Please reply to this thread whether you support the adoption, and indicate if you are ready to review if this draft becomes a working group document.
> 
> The call for adoption ends on June 22nd, 2020.
> 
> Your LAKE chairs.

> -- 
> Lake mailing list
> Lake@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lake