Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsecme-pace-ikev2

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 14, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Nico Williams wrote:

> Of course, PACE is targeting Experimental... do we care about

> cryptographic issues in Experimental RFCs?  I'd say we should, though
> less so than for Standards Track RFCs since we can only spare so much
> energy.

If we "care about" such things, they should be discussed on open mailing lists, particularly if you are criticizing academic publications related to the document.

> I'm rather disappointed to see this wheel reinvented.  SCRAM (RFC5802)
> would fit right in instead of PACE, for example, and has the same
> kinds of properties as PACE, but with a number of advantages over PACE
> (SCRAM is on the Standards Track, received much more review, uses a
> PBKDF with salt and iteration count, is implemented, is reusable in
> many contexts, does channel binding, there's an LDAP schema for
> storing SCRAM password verifiers, ...).
> 
> We, secdir, should be encouraging wheel reuse wherever possible over
> wheel reinvention.

"We" never have encouraged that. Many of "us" are chairs of WGs whose charters explicitly allow or mandate the opposite of what you are proposing. If you want a change, it has to come from the ADs, not from "us".

--Paul Hoffman