Re: [saag] Perfect Forward Secrecy vs Forward Secrecy

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 18 March 2020 16:11 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 9DFAE3A1808 for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 09:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 CeTGuPnlX6jr for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 09:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from buffalo.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (buffalo.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.24]) (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 5CC613A180C for <saag@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 09:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 035632091F; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:11:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a58.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-219-35.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.219.35]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 75BE220F82; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:11:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a58.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.5); Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:11:24 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Chemical-Spicy: 5032e0fd5564bafd_1584547884737_3091643758
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1584547884737:1443711284
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1584547884737
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a58.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a58.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC38B7F57C; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 09:11:13 -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; s=cryptonector.com; bh=N91d4ij0E3ufeG K5VixmgwJDL6M=; b=uQVwSe6qlhcEydYLLUQfYhdY2ZdR8KmNfMIjotXPybnqE9 bjpp6U8DmPUW5oatGSbDjGTfCr60twzqgpXEh5CEDfaI0nGO3zg5hegUXsieeqmU exN0GCWIFHFY5z2ZxQhNYvf6N2syNG5JJYLoLrzVkSJm84NK4wQ2lUlq56DwQ=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a58.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B21327F18E; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 09:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 11:10:56 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a58
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Robert Moskowitz <rgm-sec@htt-consult.com>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200318161055.GI18021@localhost>
References: <7231a98e-e4a2-55c9-3a51-d62886d7d061@htt-consult.com> <F318A864-CC99-47F7-BEFF-608F93AEB451@akamai.com> <89121466-d091-5f22-a053-a2a618946908@htt-consult.com> <20200318155843.GH18021@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200318155843.GH18021@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrudefjedgkedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjfgesthdtredttdervdenucfhrhhomheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdphhgvlhhopehlohgtrghlhhhoshhtpdhinhgvthepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfedprhgvthhurhhnqdhprghthheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmpdhnrhgtphhtthhopehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhm
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/WK9ToBcOZcbrm9gUqa8Ni8phU1E>
Subject: Re: [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 16:11:28 -0000

ISTR it was Radia Perlman who told me, long ago, that we now call it FS,
not PFS.  But my memory of the chat where this came up long ago is very
fuzzy.  A brief search did not turn up anything specific.

Of all the things to worry about today, changing terms of art is not
very high on my list :/