Re: [SCITT] [Keytrans] FW: Call for consensus on KEYTRANS

[Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>]

Hi keytrans,

I'd like to voice an opinion that probably sounds similar to Orie's 
w.r.t. to potentially chartering this WG:

* on the one hand, the charter text about work on algorithms and proofs 
(also beyond inclusion & consistency... freshness, for example) seems 
excitingly useful and encouraging
* on the other hand, the lack of commitment to a set of 'formats' (I am 
just using that word, I apologize) that are well-established standards 
in the IETF feels like an adoption threshold and rather discouraging.

That said, the work of algorithms and proofs is useful enough to charter 
the WG, I think. I am a bit surprised by the lack of interaction with 
other efforts though. I'd have preferred to see a list of common IETF 
formats, such as provided by Orie, included in the charter text.

Viele Grüße,

Henk

On 17.07.23 16:32, Orie Steele wrote:
> I'm active in SCITT, and I joined the KT mailing list and slack channel 
> and had a few discussions with Richard, Brendan and Kevin.
> 
> My take on why there is no engagement is that it is format preference 
> related.
> 
> SCITT cares a lot about COSE, and leveraging algorithms that are defined 
> in CT/KT for COSE.
> 
> KT seems to be more focused on defining algorithms, similar to how CT 
> defined things.... With no preference towards COSE, or JOSE, or x509.
> 
> At this point, I think it would be fair to say there is interest in 
> implementing any algorithms KT might define in COSE,
> but that the work to do that would probably happen outside of KT... Just 
> like it is happening outside of SCITT.
> 
> KT seems to have ambitions of being relevant to MLS and MIMI, but 
> potentially not so much COSE...
> Possibly because MLS and MIMI don't depend on COSE.
> 
> I think at a minimum, you would expect "key trans" at IETF to 
> acknowledge other IETF key representations,
> but you can imagine that for KT to be supportive of:
> 
> - application/cose-key 
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/cose-key>
> - application/jwk+json 
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/jwk+json>
> - application/pem-certificate-chain 
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/pem-certificate-chain>
> - application/pgp-keys 
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/pgp-keys>
> 
> ... etc...
> 
> KT might need to stay at a higher level, and define algorithms without 
> picking serialization or envelope formats, the way SCITT has.
> 
> ... SCITT chose COSE for good reasons, KT might avoid picking a side for 
> similarly good reasons.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> OS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 2:13 AM Hannes Tschofenig 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Roman, Hi all,
> 
> 
>     there is one aspect that puzzles me: repeated attempts to involve
>     KEYTRANS participants into a discussion with the SCITT group have been
>     not been successful.
> 
> 
>     It appears to be a low-hanging fruit to reach out to a group that is
>     working on a very similiar problem / where there is an obvious overlap.
> 
> 
>     Ciao
> 
>     Hannes
> 
> 
>     Am 10.07.2023 um 19:14 schrieb Roman Danyliw:
>      > Hi MLS and SCITT WGs!
>      >
>      > Cross posting to raise visibility given the discussion of key
>     transparency on the SCITT mailing list and the promise of MLS
>     integration in the proposed KEYTRANS charter.
>      >
>      > Please respond to the KEYTRANS@ietf list by Thursday, July 13th
>     with feedback on the proposed charter.  See
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-keytrans/00-05/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-keytrans/00-05/>. 
>     This will help chart the next steps.
>      >
>      > Thanks,
>      > Roman
>      >
>      > -----Original Message-----
>      > From: Roman Danyliw
>      > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2023 2:35 PM
>      > To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      > Subject: Call for consensus on KEYTRANS
>      >
>      > Hi!
>      >
>      > At IETF 116, the initial BoF on KEYTRANS was convened [1].  The
>     meeting provided a strong consensus signal around a well-defined
>     problem being presented and IETF interest in solving it.  There also
>     appeared to a critical mass of energy to do the work (write and
>     review drafts).  The next step was to produce a draft charter to
>     more concretely capture a defined WG scope.
>      >
>      > In recent months there have been a few charter versions and
>     robust discussion on their contents.  As we approach final planning
>     for IETF 117, I'd like to assess where we stand with a formal
>     consensus check with the charter.  Please see
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-keytrans/00-04/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-keytrans/00-04/>
>     (00-04) and respond to the list by Thursday, July 13 (two weeks from
>     now):
>      >
>      > ==[ consensus check questions ]==
>      > (1) Do you support the charter text? Or do you have objections or
>     blocking concerns (please describe what they might be)?
>      >
>      > If you do support the charter text:
>      > (2) Are you willing to author or participate in the developed of
>     the WG drafts?
>      >
>      > (3) Are you willing to review the WG drafts?
>      >
>      > (4) Are you interested in implementing the WG drafts?
>      >
>      > ==[ consensus check questions ]==
>      >
>      > If you previously spoke up at the BoF, please repeat yourself here.
>      >
>      > The outcome of this consensus check will inform how to planned
>     for the second KEYTRANS BoF scheduled at IETF 117.  Options include:
>      >
>      > ** If we find consensus on the mailing with the current charter
>     text, no BoF is needed, and it will be canceled (note: this should
>     be viewed as a success.  The entire point of the BoF is to produce a
>     charter and that goal would have been realized)
>      >
>      > ** If there are blocking concerns which cannot be resolved on the
>     mailing list, these will form the basis of the IETF 117 BoF agenda
>      >
>      > Thanks,
>      > Roman
>      >
>      > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-116-keytrans/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-116-keytrans/>
> 
>     -- 
>     SCITT mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scitt
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scitt>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> ORIE STEELE
> Chief Technology Officer
> www.transmute.industries
> 
> <https://transmute.industries>
> 
>