IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-herzog-static-ecdh-05

Uri Blumenthal <uri@MIT.EDU> Mon, 21 March 2011 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <uri@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 538EE28C158 for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_OBFU_ALL=0.751]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uEv-TV94mMU8 for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-8.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97ED928C0E7 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 12074425-b7be5ae000000a16-a3-4d876fcf51ad
Received: from mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.39]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 78.BC.02582.FCF678D4; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:33:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id p2LFXWmV002851; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:33:32 -0400
Received: from Angmar.local (c-24-63-227-189.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.63.227.189]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as uri@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id p2LFXS9w013709 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:33:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4D876FC8.9090601@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:33:28 -0400
From: Uri Blumenthal <uri@MIT.EDU>
Organization: MIT
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: secdir@ietf.org
References: <D858A225-D1D1-497D-BA40-A66D3F55AD57@cisco.com> <552BBAA9-712F-49B4-8A5F-C671C3817C05@ll.mit.edu> <AA323705-436C-4B71-8B51-D2CA9E4E140C@cisco.com> <47CF9528-81A1-49D7-8D4B-B1DCC136581E@ll.mit.edu> <3E69AF7B-D325-4FC5-A003-FEBA1997D67E@cisco.com> <FFD02A42-A10C-4AE7-A763-5C2D1E1DFADA@ll.mit.edu> <65D56695-894D-458E-A9C4-6DCF6A38F196@cisco.com> <29C1F1D5-6EF0-4055-BA88-03F03E3F0A84@ll.mit.edu> <A2B7EC12-25AA-4D0A-ACA3-A5E67C14E596@cisco.com> <63667400-81DF-438E-869F-247222DECA18@ll.mit.edu> <9BD7FA82-120B-4433-9EB0-7249C06F6852@ll.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <9BD7FA82-120B-4433-9EB0-7249C06F6852@ll.mit.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090705020504090400040409"
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrIKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6nrns+v93XYO9rVYubbX9YLD4sfMji wOSxZMlPJo8vlz+zBTBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGWsWTuLteCSaUXHxKXsDYw/tLsYOTkkBEwk LlzsY4awxSQu3FvP1sXIxSEksI9R4uyMxSwQzgZGiYX/nzJBOCeYJI7c3MUG0sIroCax/2A7 I4jNIqAq8XzfORYQm01ASaK5eQsriC0kICpxYW8zmM0vICjRsvAv2ApRgQZGiam909ghBglK nJz5BKxZREBY4vbBB2ANzALxErubv4MtEBZwkjh9bg0zxBVrWCSed9wAO5xTwE5i8o8p7BBP SEqcPn4E6FQOoOYwiU8r4yYwCs9CsmIWQmYW2AYdiXd9D5ghbHmJ7W/nQNnaEqt6zzIhiy9g ZFvFKJuSW6Wbm5iZU5yarFucnJiXl1qka6GXm1mil5pSuokRHDsuqjsYJxxSOsQowMGoxMN7 QLDNV4g1say4MvcQoyQHk5Io78rcdl8hvqT8lMqMxOKM+KLSnNTiQ4wSHMxKIryNAUA53pTE yqrUonyYlDQHi5I473xJdV8hgfTEktTs1NSC1CKYrAwHh5IErxAwRQgJFqWmp1akZeaUIKSZ ODhBhvMADecHqeEtLkjMLc5Mh8ifYtTl+DJz815GIZa8/LxUKXFeeZAiAZCijNI8uDmwlPeK URzoLWFeAZAqHmC6hJv0CmgJE9CSvVtaQJaUJCKkpBoYrSTLxTtaOPeuPxYVNFlkxXfh3Q+a bNQmHFq4jOeOYwPH4vS/0YxBSiX+lfLf91g9a9/E+oBfR/zQtYNhu+cc0fu+0vH5pFXv7Ewu 1dnx+097ZucrZth4Iy6KafXRBAXfLuYbDx1vnY+MmXfJPshdhm0hi2ji6frSTc7Ltga98pPq mfiGk81NiaU4I9FQi7moOBEA4OT4I1QDAAA=
Cc: draft-herzog-static-ecdh@tools.ietf.org, "Jonathan C. Herzog" <jherzog@ll.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-herzog-static-ecdh-05
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: uri@MIT.EDU
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 21 Mar 2011 15:32:03 -0000

In that case - since X9.63 and SEC1 turned out to be the same - would it
make sense to reverse them in Normative/Informative status? My reasoning
is - SEC1 is freely available, and X9.63 seems to be available only for
a fee.

Either way is OK with me.

Thanks!


On 3/15/11 17:07 PM, Herzog, Jonathan - 0668 - MITLL wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Herzog, Jonathan - 0668 - MITLL wrote:
>> From: "Herzog, Jonathan - 0668 - MITLL" <jherzog@ll.mit.edu>
>> Date: March 10, 2011 3:41:52 PM EST
>> To: David McGrew <mcgrew@cisco.com>
>> Cc: Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com>, "draft-herzog-static-ecdh@tools.ietf.org" <draft-herzog-static-ecdh@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-herzog-static-ecdh-05
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 10, 2011, at 1:12 PM, David McGrew wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, SP800-56A does define cofactor ECDH. So let me propose the  
>>>> following citation scheme:
>>>>
>>>> * ECDH in general: RFC 6090
>>>> * Standard ECDH: RFC 6090
>>>> * Co-factor Diffie-Hellman: SP 800-56A, Section 5.7.1.2
>>>> * Full public-key validation: SP800-56A, Section 5.6.2.5
>>>> * Partial public-key validation: SP800-56A: Section 5.6.2.6
>>>> * Key-derivation function... still working on it.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>> That looks good to me.  Let me know if I can help with the KDF.
>>
>> I'd appreciate it, thanks. One of the goals of this draft is to remain as compatible with RFC 5753 as possible, so as to impact implementations as little as possible. RFC 5753, for its part, specifies the KDF in SEC1. And the KDF in SEC1 is just the 'simple hash function construct described in ANSI X9.63'. So, do you think I can cite X9.63 as the normative reference? And if so, what are your thoughts on citing SEC1 as an informative reference for this KDF? SEC1 is, after all, freely available on the web.
>>
>> (Note: I'm still chasing down the ANSI spec to ensure that it does, in fact, match the description in SEC1.)
> Just to follow up on this: I got the X9.63 spec and checked its KDF. It's the same as the one in SEC1. Some very very minor differences in the description, but it's the same KDF.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list
> secdir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir


-- 
Regards,
Uri

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email