IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 04 October 2018 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 6F610130EDD for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:50:38 -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=cryptonector.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 ymxqAURiJ-14 for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB4A6130EB8 for <saag@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34DA77E179; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=nkcxVf5hiy9PaMji+HaFvuPparg=; b=gSGNTqdDEtS 2NTuXE8Rb2DCvlbttkZ2tzcBES2Eq90B4PKJitB6wGYxqEPZ9MxYv/sVtAhn4uoE n8cFGKp3A6Fs06x8Y3s1vt2bYCfeDlNom8uMD66FUwpa4hpWtelwe4Qu8ZvQzb56 mROj9sYgssDGThvL+vMEC6TSegOu6BUc=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EFEB57E17F; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 10:50:29 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a9
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
Cc: Rich Salz <rsalz@akamai.com>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20181004155028.GK2164@localhost>
References: <7CB10AE4-09C1-4AC5-B255-6489EF1FAE78@akamai.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1810021734350.12702@bofh.nohats.ca> <BEC2489D-FE1E-4E55-A88C-05E0143F8415@gmail.com> <20181002220720.GD56675@kduck.kaduk.org> <CABcZeBPJjfjdxbHCWFQFLJcnMKZSCpVb0oEZPhpymVgu-=bspQ@mail.gmail.com> <4DCAFB4A-9CDB-4692-9382-FBD04DC8FA16@akamai.com> <DBAF8917-3E3B-41DA-851B-5A925423ED7C@sn3rd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DBAF8917-3E3B-41DA-851B-5A925423ED7C@sn3rd.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/928KZMHFvdeB9dZVx4PxoP2DuUI>
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: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 15:50:44 -0000

On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 10:53:20AM -0400, Sean Turner wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 2018, at 10:49, Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
> > 	• The reasoning here was that having code points marked Not
> > 	Recommended was better than having people squatting.
> >  
> > They’re actually “no comment” as opposed to Not Recommended.  The
> > only way something gets to be recommended is if it’s a WG document.
> > This is, admittedly, a fine point and could well be lost on many,
> > but it’s important.
> 
> Agreed that it will be lost on most, but I think it kind of makes
> sense.  The interesting flip side here is that there are going to be
> some perfectly good algorithms are not marked as Recommended.

That is just fine.  There's no reason we should want all "perfectly good
algorithms" to be, or even any other than those we already have as,
Recommended.

To go from "no comment" to Recommended, a "perfectly good algorithm"
would have to be more than perfectly good: the IETF would have to need
additional Recommended algorithms due to obsolescence of existing ones.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email