IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] [DNSOP] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-04

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sat, 05 December 2020 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 246873A0489; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 08:18:38 -0800 (PST)
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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 ST__TOERVTqj; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 08:18:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B73003A03F1; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 08:18:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D10BE2F; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 16:18:31 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8cLeQfgL8ibv; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 16:18:29 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.244.2.119] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2EDFABE1C; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 16:18:29 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1607185109; bh=B8vzXuEfspEONZ1UsE4O2dsx/+2UOMVmOTwt0qF1jAM=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=eujqngQuSJVviDp04vuq+t7WPabBPBadqwg5MWwovxd9GWl1DhUWNDceQyEzi63dc nQh1or8vgJf/XmrCxvel6UXwTny05BJaUneyp3i7OcNi3F1hfUt7Aavov3aprfbspw q1uaErVVxFr+ZCm4G4RMDhp8ghX0IlgzYfZ9co4U=
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org>
Cc: "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies.all@ietf.org>, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
References: <160693121881.9413.5642470305677631145@ietfa.amsl.com> <17AFD6F5-11DA-41BC-8C37-E1893648041D@isc.org> <CABcZeBPRn3aTBsApawvk_Ecyzdbi+SX9=b74y0_uhYx_Y8p-5w@mail.gmail.com> <51A61472-45D7-4133-80BC-1F470B5CBD84@isc.org> <20201204203635.GS64351@kduck.mit.edu> <320692C5-9C47-4CE6-8D6C-A62C2B50728F@akamai.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <d827684d-3d60-6f30-cfdb-e598025b32e3@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 16:18:27 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <320692C5-9C47-4CE6-8D6C-A62C2B50728F@akamai.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TwNRxYgYC0rAwmYWyYuff8RvefFdJ9rNN"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/8fAjZRBNjeJOfV7CbwXr8DMVgi4>
Subject: Re: [secdir] [DNSOP] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 16:18:38 -0000

Hiya,

On 05/12/2020 14:58, Salz, Rich wrote:
> There is a fair amount of academic study around SipHash, and while
> everyone can make mistakes, its creators have a pretty good
> reputation. I don't think we can say SipHash is unknown in the
> industry.
> 
> The TLSWG made it a practice to ask CFRG to "approve" all crypto it
> used (except perhapd HKDF, but that's a side note). The DNSOP has no
> such practice.

FWIW, I think asking CFRG for comment (not approval) whenever
a new algorithm is introduced onto the standards-track is a
good idea, regardless of the WG from which the draft came.
Such checks don't mean anyone thinks badly of any algorithm,
the argument is it's better to ask a question in the place
where the expertise lies, just in case.

Cheers,
S.

> 
> If SECDIR or the Ads thinks SipHash isn't good, it would be great to
> hear reasons.  I haven't heard any yet.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list 
> DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email