Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08.txt

"Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)" <> Fri, 09 August 2013 08:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3ADF21F9F50; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 01:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z+NjzwYwgBji; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 01:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8DB321F9BC1; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 01:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2516; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1376038117; x=1377247717; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=bT/TENNzURX9RzEoLfSc02D3kvIVfKo5MecDBmyaqIs=; b=LzEv/JGRTHi352thw9WOhA3Ele7EsvQQwCqy1DfDbXvA9KSImnwKrajd tABVQIj6vXCDpZACTJZVCj4NF8XJSkJuor9nWqeoyBxoqPyrtYZh740/A gIx3Rq6FeEJs+90DAiVVj08dLRpl6f4hcnJ/nDfmcWwz7bebfseHs87fD g=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 203
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhAFAJ+rBFKtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABbgwaBBb5SgRgWdIIlAQEEeRACAQgiJDIlAgQOBQgGiAK5RY9qMQeDGnQDkBSBLZdvgxiCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.89,844,1367971200"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="245379394"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 09 Aug 2013 08:48:34 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r798mYPi022119 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 9 Aug 2013 08:48:34 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 03:48:34 -0500
From: "Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)" <>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@PAINLESS-SECURITY.COM>
Thread-Topic: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOk4b0Eg4BbEukoUS8XGc9hcW1OpmM5zUA
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 08:48:34 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F7A63075-84D5-4C1C-8CCB-E3107EFEEC06"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>, The IESG <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 08:48:42 -0000

Russ, Sam,

On Aug 7, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Sam Hartman <hartmans@PAINLESS-SECURITY.COM> wrote:

>>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Housley <> writes:
>    Russ> Klaas: The property you describe depends on the inputs to the
>    Russ> KDF, not just the definition of the function.
>    Russ> Notice that an IANA registry is defined, and each entry should
>    Russ> point to a definition of the function.
> So, there are a couple of things.
> There are functions that take a random bit string and convert them into
> a key.  For example if you have 56 random bits and want a 64-bit
> correct-parity DES key.
> I don't have  a good name for such a function but it's not a KDF.
> There are functions that take the output of key agreement (DH, ECDH,
> etc) and convernt into a good symmetric key.  I've heard those described
> as key expansion functions or KDFs.
> There are functions that take one symmetric key and turn it into another
> symmetric key so that you can construct a key hierarchy.  I've also seen
> these described as KDFs.  It's probable that any function that's really
> good at taking key agreement output as input and producing a strong key
> will also be good enough  for establishing a key hierarchy.
> I'm not aware of definitive definitions in this space, and I'm fairly
> sure the text we added in 08 is what we mean for this document.

OK, I don't argue that this is what you need at all, so no argument there. The only question I raised is whether one-way is a necessary condition for each and every KDF. I would argue that key stretching not necessarily means one-way .

If you add "in this document" somewhere in the definition I'd be happy, if you don't, no big deal either.