Re: [openpgp] OpenPGP Suite-B Profile vs. RFC 8423

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Tue, 02 March 2021 05:58 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C509E3A2658 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 21:58:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 h-epE6z6CDQC for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 21:58:40 -0800 (PST)
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 72AAD3A2656 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 21:58:40 -0800 (PST)
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 1225wXis018564 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 2 Mar 2021 00:58:37 -0500
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 21:58:33 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@gmail.com>
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20210302055833.GY21@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <CAA-4+jd_AR6Yt8WvvEE_M+pj8hyJEhRVM8AsXLNHpHqA8jJQyQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAA-4+jd_AR6Yt8WvvEE_M+pj8hyJEhRVM8AsXLNHpHqA8jJQyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/8c-PCansy5IHDzrq3wLnynWi9G8>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] OpenPGP Suite-B Profile vs. RFC 8423
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2021 05:58:43 -0000

On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 08:02:24AM +0900, Masanori Ogino wrote:
> Hello folks,
> 
> First of all, thank you all for your effort on revising OpenPGP RFC!
> I am really glad to hear that the OpenPGP WG was officially rebooted recently.
> 
> I have a comment on draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-02, section 16.2.
> The section specifies a compatibility profile conforming the Suite B.
> However, IETF published RFC 8423 that moved several RFCs referring the
> Suite B for other protocols to Historic.
> 
> >From RFC 8423:
> > In July 2015, NSA published the Committee for National Security
> > Systems Advisory Memorandum 02-15 as the first step in replacing
> > Suite B with NSA's Commercial National Security Algorithm (CNSA)
> > Suite.
> > (...)
> > As indicated in [CNSA], NSA is transitioning from Suite B to the CNSA
> > Suite.  As a result, the profiles of the security protocols for the
> > Suite B algorithms are now only of historic interest.
> 
> It would be great if the ongoing revision specifies a CNSA profile
> and/or obsoletes the Suite B profile IMHO.
> What do you think?

Obsoleting (or maybe even just not describing; I didn't look at the current
state of it) the Suite B profile seems worthwhile.

The ongoing CNSA work has not been done in the IETF itself, and instead is
progressing as RFCs via the Independent Submissions Editor.

-Ben