IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 08 April 2019 12:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
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 0B83F120303 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 05:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 DCOOt7ZaXRXJ for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 05:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1266F1203D5 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 05:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id h16so11055636ljg.11 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 05:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZRdWkNm2gx8jSB+mk63gm3Kxzhj0L+PN6zg53c1iv6I=; b=olB69Qh/QY7KBESG3c/Pc/WqFDqCoxZYlw8zBA6RAJqAMtZG/cneFR0SubpmOdzfP6 edAgkewevrhXzTOwhcxygImBH5GClmwtsoVkQExjKRXHrJSmjDKf7cfsC5imA0FZI+CY Jsb4fTjAKrxl8lEglMgmfq8ii/lDIfy9L9WTJM6UOjg46OCMxda6fDhmWKIvz/dZ5gUy G2MA41OcU8MLlz+f0J+0obcIgeOco1RUm6TBUB5bIDfcmXXZxtDt/rmMAT83SFQ6E4lV oQ9Lat/PqdVn2wWwYngXaYeZDQ+wDV+zoc2wruVFECUm+FekUgnyxm71Wmft/dCYERqM sBzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZRdWkNm2gx8jSB+mk63gm3Kxzhj0L+PN6zg53c1iv6I=; b=iohlktF+LgAHQVvPODi+ihj/Bkz5K/OriFqcKR/M5/hGazHOslI0xlNUgcZtQNhWKG 36PanqrPvBa/gC1ad0QdFlQiTERLLdGDp4OrgHIwFRO78mXVHUoULHncXyEm9aSMG/PU 5GMxQi2e5aldRyQEJ6eDZc6pa+nn/Fl/nxy6e4B/4FB6zU45C0bH8gOyEdXYLhTP/ww4 3ViZz/KfEh9jeTkuqZKVPuw01UGsja0Iv6+tLZcx8KkkiKaXFrKWU/sChmNkshm1Lsa8 STEgo4pTuaGcWNfXrFtjYr8C/pP9Z06AxYvuF1j7pzBADS5ms1SnloB52O8L9/1X3Vk9 D2EA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVNVuWWKbrUF8ugO4SMHDbcrX7vPQaytQtq6qvGYQEbVwJbeMS1 jCZdPFN/erNaYb2OvpZULq1thEqvtbyITTKuesorHA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxFlRSOu3pfcZsdPplMhXQ5IpYxSOJBkyCqil8a+aO4QRXPNmYegcvYf4yu1H0uYqCwpROI9xYqLOLz7Vc04Fc=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9a49:: with SMTP id k9mr16487566ljj.84.1554727226316; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 05:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1d8de489fc976b63a911573300a431d4.squirrel@www.amsl.com> <CABcZeBNxgUsWpgWkUQPVrnaKYRCZud1LvkvQgt_5KX7ZhQ3sSQ@mail.gmail.com> <35FC8AD5-BF45-4C3E-A0A8-0EA426970DEA@ll.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <35FC8AD5-BF45-4C3E-A0A8-0EA426970DEA@ll.mit.edu>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 05:39:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNdZ1i1yc2Nd_vBxxNhxU01y3R2JE6b1MG82P4A3-CRnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
Cc: Nevil Brownlee <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>, "<sec-ads@ietf.org>" <sec-ads@ietf.org>, cfrg <cfrg@irtf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000c2bf90586042462"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/dARhOOax7oT0xJxC3JWnCe4Cpxo>
Subject: Re: [secdir] [Cfrg] ISE seeks help with some crypto drafts
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: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 12:40:38 -0000

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 5:30 AM Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <
uri@ll.mit.edu> wrote:

> Well, we *are* interested in OCB and ciphers with block size != 128 bits,
> even if we won't necessarily document our use in another RFC.
>
> Thus, I see your point but disagree with it's apparent conclusion. IMHO
> the OCB draft should be published.
>

Why does having it documented in an RFC assist that? It's not difficult to
find a description of OCB.

-Ekr


> Not sure about RC{5,6} - not my cup of tea.
>
> Regards,
> Uri
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 8, 2019, at 08:21, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>
> These drafts seem quite low value to publish:
>
> The existing OCB document [RFC 7253] is cited by exactly zero RFCs (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7253/referencedby/), so having a
> specification for ciphers with block size != 128 seems of particularly low
> value.
>
> The existing RC5 document [RFC 2040] has 6 RFC-level citations, but as far
> as I know, RC5 has practically no usage in IETF protocols. AFAICT, RC6
> isn't even specified in an RFC. Thus, test vectors for these algorithms
> don't seem that interesting.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 9:20 AM RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel) <
> rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi CFRG and SecDir,
>>
>> Ted Krovetz has asked for publication of ...
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-krovetz-ocb-wideblock/
>> ....and...
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-krovetz-rc6-rc5-vectors/
>>
>> ....in the Independent Stream.
>>
>> These are both currently in expired state, but available in the archive.
>>
>> At this stage I am looking to know whether anyone feels that publication
>> would be a bad thing:
>> - at this stage
>> - ever
>>
>> Please send me your opinions direct (I am not subscribed to this list, but
>> will check the archives).
>>
>> Please also let me know if you would be willing to be a detailed reviewer
>> of this work.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Adrian
>> --
>> Adrian Farrel (ISE),
>> rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email