IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-housley-suite-b-to-historic-04

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 24 April 2018 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 DD88312E8CE; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 2bQgMF8siXsi; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6ACBE129C6E; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40Vp4j55Rmz4Kc; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:02:29 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1524585749; bh=cPBvYRILHkh5MjbM6GgkEIa8JGNa4Vgmu3l5eAq9dGw=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=kdPQNZWuPTMKzkIcvNM9gyxucaKKcHe+jUKZbFEag0TgfLc/3HkTKqK4ykHduRxfV ODpDWPWx0stRGDNIpmxyp1Z4z68e33R0pLF9VutTSU3xrq7BWuUOoY2CcfquVArYhM IaOure61tSg2NEfcYAr8uD/W1Rqk7wXVSjc7ZJ/0=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X2Qwt6362pjF; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:02:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:02:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B4E8AA7E07; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:02:25 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca B4E8AA7E07
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7BD440B820B; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:02:25 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:02:25 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
cc: Taylor Yu <tlyu@mit.edu>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF SecDir <secdir@ietf.org>, draft-housley-suite-b-to-historic.all@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <2C83CCC3-063E-416D-BB68-70E15C726C96@vigilsec.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1804241159460.20766@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <ldv36zl5kjd.fsf@ubuntu-1gb-nyc1-01.localdomain> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1804241056020.17777@bofh.nohats.ca> <2C83CCC3-063E-416D-BB68-70E15C726C96@vigilsec.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/dr_o80CcTVKgy_DQzaEwbjdNZ8k>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-housley-suite-b-to-historic-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:02:34 -0000

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Russ Housley wrote:

>> I would suggest something like this for Section 7:
>>
>> 	The algorithms and key sizes from Suite B, where these algorithms
>> 	and key sizes were published by the IETF, have been obsoleted or
>> 	updated by new and more secure algorithms and key sizes. Please
>> 	see the respective IANA registries and RFC updates for the
>> 	specific algorithm usage within their specific protocols.
>
> I think that last sentence of the existing Security Considerations should remain:
>
>   ... There are no interoperability or security
>   concerns raised by reclassifying the Suite-B-related RFCs to Historic
>   Status.
>
> In fact, I think it should be said first.

Indeed, I agree with that. I only object to the first sentence
mentioning CNSA. Just removing it without replacement text would
work too for me.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email