Re: [precis] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-08: (with COMMENT)

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 05 July 2017 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D23127241; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=stpeter.im header.b=jC6E5wLO; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=GhW8i+mB
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 AI-benQdztbr; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68A1C127201; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACE8B2091B; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 18:12:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 05 Jul 2017 18:12:56 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stpeter.im; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=LzC1BJVUaX/8vngJyw 8nkAMq4fGLO0Dvvhn+n3xGNGE=; b=jC6E5wLO3YjjsgU+dgWFVqCaXw64dyQ1mF yFoHvlPraNNtEhWEH416K+dJD/ZtUnnFOAj7TNoU8Li7iTXnSVTfEoh/igmgaE1E ZpMZP7aoHAZRhKKw+wm2XO4l4/lveP7VFIDY1MywWp4SkqBg+B9GSrRHpL1dnNJS vS5f/LKk3a2alDPY4O+7UQECjrqN/QPFvCuEXZ502Of16KPeuAApNTwd8WmQYNch ou8Afz+z8WGt0ruLAtDrLJgBIqbmuWBnZRDbJHhgoy/0O5dD0RbRVJv97sESHMhY mTo8aS3kiLavR+6wuyfsadlOYYTHBN6wS8ehuW1HvcFfkyUlU1+Q==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=LzC1BJVUaX/8vngJyw8nkAMq4fGLO0Dvvhn+n3xGNGE=; b=GhW8i+mB euhLcMjFoqXxLtfE7wnJSvSwBGLflTVzuG4R9UjKL4w5QumQqFrGQoHeD9ONlUVH jIV6NJ89z7kFq/yf3z5DrvDU0kgfsXxHFXhFxdvf9KegHXV7p7mqNFve53E8u2BG pQmMnp46dYi1Xngn0fOWxcFQ+2BA+KNolu2zf+aaGARyYzQ3fwBGsaTbPuxuUF4A IfxkoSCokmOvKIl82fZZeqyTLXrYWyD+h22YAuBn8HO4FgWxc9lqLMfTA+ysuZfT FmIQpWIFnYdULGcEwUY6qDpxJ4cqGNetFP3/I6ttd7mxv+bInq/VRnBo5M+CMP6X RSuuD/vBvbH6Yw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:aGRdWeUglNqTcwY7bKPamsTPBDu-BUfZzMvIaS_jrODUvq1Bcgjv2g>
X-Sasl-enc: Y1zIXHDdk05qZyNENFQzy8tZEvXnD/LIGTNhT26SR0HD 1499292776
Received: from aither.local (unknown [76.25.4.24]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DA3E02479F; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 18:12:55 -0400 (EDT)
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <149928511354.13530.16384868318840634986.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: precis@ietf.org, draft-ietf-precis-7613bis@ietf.org, precis-chairs@ietf.org
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Message-ID: <030c786e-3697-08f9-2a27-75cf5e90cc68@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 16:12:54 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <149928511354.13530.16384868318840634986.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/precis/yoIIAxYD5tfEJZ6_m1s6hB2Q68k>
Subject: Re: [precis] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/precis/>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 22:12:59 -0000

On 7/5/17 2:05 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-08: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-7613bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I agree with jsalowey's point about discouraging raw password comparison. Can
> you do something about that?

In version -08 we added the following text:

8.2.  Password/Passphrase Comparison

   In systems that conform to modern best practices for security,
   verification of passwords during authentication will not use the
   comparison defined in Section 4.2.3.  Instead, because the system
   performs cryptographic calculations to verify the password, it will
   prepare the password as defined in Section 4.2.1 and enforce the
   rules as defined in Section 4.2.2 before performing the relevant
   calculations.

> The use of "false positive" is confusing because positive can either mean
> "accept" or "reject". I would use "false accept" or "false reject" or some
> other clearer term

That's a good suggestion - we'll incorporate that change in the
post-IESG revision.

Peter