Re: [secdir] [Cfrg] ISE seeks help with some crypto drafts

[Ted Krovetz <[e-mail]>]

> On Mar 8, 2019, at 4:11 PM, John Mattsson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Given that CFRG has already published OCB3 in RFC 7253, which was recently included in the CEASAR final portfolio, I would like to see the OCB3 wideblock draft published somewhere. I agree with Rich that it would be better to replace RFC 7523.


> On Mar 8, 2019, at 9:56 AM, Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-krovetz-ocb-wideblock/
> 
> I would rather see this rewritten to completely replace 7523 (and include its test vectors of course)  Would review.
> 
>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-krovetz-rc6-rc5-vectors/
> 
> I don't see a compelling need for this, but I am not strongly opposed either.


I would be happy to merge the wideblock modifications into RFC 7253. I was unaware that such changes were allowed for RFCs after publication, but if it is allowed it seems like a sensible approach. I am currently half-way through a busy semester so would not be able to get to it until May though.

As for the RC5/RC6 draft, I introduced it so that I would have a simple example block cipher for generating test vectors of different lengths. If it's not useful as a stand alone RFC, I could fold it into an appendix of a revised RFC 7253 or take suggestions for other applicable block ciphers with stable normative references. A more compact alternative to using a real block cipher for test vectors is to use a toy stand-in such as E(k,x) = x*k over GF(2^n).

Thank you for all of your feedback,
Ted