IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [saag] Discuss at SAAG? was Re: nation state crypto profiles - draft-jenkins-cnsa-cmc-profile-00

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 02 October 2018 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4A0013117D for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 14:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 VqQwkFvAALOi for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 14:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 564F11310E3 for <saag@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 14:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42Pssh6cWPzKC9; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 23:36:24 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1538516184; bh=Hg8HGytHz56RnjiF8EknMQ1b3eSazaWrg2UZGC/FlUI=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=tC2090RPZ8n+nmMIX8SYFFOG8/m0m5lXJIQNy134PM4qYzGU9kQYk45vOuvBswkNI qwMMRZNKh0np+iImegz8ALH0PdkSoPk6sdlPqYvIEh9IXTI8h5r0E4LFzuhV7xwI4j 93WTTeHdDvStr+czKxpAEZfu6AMPil/4t9nruA1U=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VGfuXKiTmr4v; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 23:36:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 23:36:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8781F2E75A2; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 17:36:22 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 8781F2E75A2
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB1B40781FE; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 17:36:22 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 17:36:22 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
cc: Dmitry Belyavsky <beldmit@gmail.com>, "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <7CB10AE4-09C1-4AC5-B255-6489EF1FAE78@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1810021734350.12702@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <7CB10AE4-09C1-4AC5-B255-6489EF1FAE78@akamai.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/1hula7fPx98t4R6tB0cSpLh5k4g>
Subject: Re: [saag] Discuss at SAAG? was Re: nation state crypto profiles - draft-jenkins-cnsa-cmc-profile-00
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/saag/>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 21:36:29 -0000

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Salz, Rich wrote:

>  *  (e.g. TLS ciphersuites identifiers) to use them for national-wide purposes 
>  *  along with "first class" algorithms. 
> 
> TLS has moved to “doc required”  Not “RFC required.”  And added a column that says whether it is “recommended” or “no comment.”  This seems like it will work out well.

Similarly, for IKE/IPsec, the IANA registries are Expert Review, not "RFC required"

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email