[Privacy-pass] Question on proposed charter
Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> Sun, 17 May 2020 22:12 UTC
Return-Path: <joe@salowey.net>
X-Original-To: privacy-pass@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: privacy-pass@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65783A0788 for <privacy-pass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 May 2020 15:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=salowey-net.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 QW6TxxoSVXIY for <privacy-pass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 May 2020 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82c.google.com (mail-qt1-x82c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c]) (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 B0C423A07A6 for <privacy-pass@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 May 2020 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82c.google.com with SMTP id x12so6615727qts.9 for <privacy-pass@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 May 2020 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=salowey-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=JolsGQH8YFhZzqOqkdCeRpo51kARugDim+xaqHSdsKE=; b=r17Ft+xOhDtkT1jDO2TboFphu2M8WhMWWpDXIxdYcS507QHmkS8+jOVDzeapHCoENl VITuJCkYZn5pWrhlAvHrJvPA8RJA3Bqh24yky9X6pLlyc0aq+EXQAK2YrEa3E4ZQx/c7 0Q9QYDTgiItcC+9scx8TO05wB/GownWV3zK2kaHe2oO9w1BsaeQZ9WnUfwxinbclHPTC rWoT8hXtL6ucHBK7lKHY+nkba0mWHMYn2D2n1bcGqARXVXwsWru2ee7SHc4jU0ioAlD7 H8o6sL5ic/pQk+lRvYDCcLWkVk+RgaMsMObcOixL201c6sSR2lmsXDDEdMtxPjuP15Hk rxXA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=JolsGQH8YFhZzqOqkdCeRpo51kARugDim+xaqHSdsKE=; b=GG6cV9SDlkmfKTo1IUosLy6Y5kEcqsoEABVC/qEO/u1fvponehPggpzXsSGLc1BLIU i8rRLA4Ck8uLrLeYcCmx0Z+jTFmWtkTieE0c3JKZFom1mCNbiHj6MeXrTGmTnBzYude3 AqrMYr7gKmL2xZLRX0kbNdIM3yXt0IhedVEOL30wwhBGps1YUjJ7MivBi4HMXG99q4D9 UM1G9OwJwSjmk/v/52OBdl9reqArGSzGf9b/z1LKmhv2xaZbjKTp+THXomLNWC2BkqXU BCzlokm2JMN4Xf6SVGBAgwDINjueCwhlP/ZCHqy+MoYlOMA0VuvDbz1JdmTFIqcIhy+M coFg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533oW07HTEZ6FpHsvo0LvE/zVH2lhhs6Yx+QClnfOME4Vbl3h2Jh 1dpCXOLyu/dfO7YP3WOxRbjncRCsTRVry/uggG18wYB18wY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyyzftVOQxhFkQQMWRaXceSE3ufzjlIJcVI7nEOjvVZHxHc8LGATQ4iv9WDhhd+sYM+QzxLI5ScqBAdOXibFOE=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:3793:: with SMTP id d19mr14467827qtc.297.1589753524333; Sun, 17 May 2020 15:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 15:11:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOgPGoDwbfTXkX4zr0hPwkWFGk7pw8LGu=ST6t_mLGFRSEe7Jw@mail.gmail.com>
To: privacy-pass@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001944a105a5df5618"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/privacy-pass/Bo8L2x0H5XgOHUutzGBeRDJ3GW4>
Subject: [Privacy-pass] Question on proposed charter
X-BeenThere: privacy-pass@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <privacy-pass.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/privacy-pass>, <mailto:privacy-pass-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/privacy-pass/>
List-Post: <mailto:privacy-pass@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:privacy-pass-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy-pass>, <mailto:privacy-pass-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 22:12:07 -0000
There are a few questions on the proposed charter: In the text "Negotiation of cryptographic parameters during the protocol is an application-specific property and thus out of scope for the Working Group." What are the cryptographic parameters and why would they not need to be negotiated for interoperability? Also, is the following text a result of the algorithms being worked on in CFRG vs. this working group? "Specification of the underlying cryptographic algorithms or protocols is also out of scope." If so we might mention that this work depends on the work in the CFRG. Thanks, Joe
- [Privacy-pass] Question on proposed charter Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Privacy-pass] Question on proposed charter Steven Valdez
- Re: [Privacy-pass] Question on proposed charter Alex Davidson
- Re: [Privacy-pass] Question on proposed charter Ben Schwartz
- Re: [Privacy-pass] Question on proposed charter Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Privacy-pass] Question on proposed charter Alex Davidson
- Re: [Privacy-pass] Question on proposed charter Christopher Wood