IETF Logo Mail Archive

[saag] Perfect Forward Secrecy vs Forward Secrecy

Robert Moskowitz <rgm-sec@htt-consult.com> Wed, 18 March 2020 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <rgm-sec@htt-consult.com>
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 3EF273A16BA for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 07:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
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 kYK7VSsuH32I for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 07:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [23.123.122.147]) (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 C793A3A16B9 for <saag@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 07:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E89E621A0 for <saag@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:36:20 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at htt-consult.com
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id nbZcNAK43c-n for <saag@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:36:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lx140e.htt-consult.com (unknown [192.168.160.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE7976212E for <saag@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:36:14 -0400 (EDT)
To: saag@ietf.org
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm-sec@htt-consult.com>
Message-ID: <7231a98e-e4a2-55c9-3a51-d62886d7d061@htt-consult.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:36:10 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/81XWrBZiLNoPg7kfnAdaxIB8da8>
Subject: [saag] Perfect Forward Secrecy vs Forward Secrecy
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: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 14:36:24 -0000

I have been asked to change all uses of the term:

Perfect Forward Secrecy

to

Forward Secrecy

As perfection is hard to attain.

Now I am all for that, as in my  Orthodox Jewish background, Perfection 
is truly limited.  But I am quite use to the hijacking of words like 
awesome.

But the term is pretty well baked into IETF standards.

What is the 'feel' about this.

Should I start a movement of using "Forward Secrecy" and the Security 
Directorate will back this position, getting all current drafts to 
change as well?

Thank you for your opinions.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email