Re: [Secdispatch] [EXTERNAL]Re: Clarification Question for the Comment from Eric Rescorla (

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 12 December 2019 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1196712013B for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:32:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Tw4YdhwSK_Bw for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:32:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87965120024 for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:32:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E3C38998; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:28:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1799D726; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:32:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Panos Kampanakis \(pkampana\)" <pkampana@cisco.com>
cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, IETF SecDispatch <secdispatch@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR11MB2547EA5F6DF70BC2B9C21E64C9550@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <12eed4ff-edd2-7f70-9460-fc86dcbab927@openca.org> <CABcZeBPbAgBfC6Et+OKQi2=GwsyeyKEKfW5GG=StUepQwy+f0g@mail.gmail.com> <7999ebac-c9c1-eb4f-d9f7-2ba814a3b331@cs.tcd.ie> <78997490-c5ae-c856-6e26-0f79c7733ca3@openca.org> <CABcZeBM5WgpcBP4axBvzWaxKU=JA-K-4qiVxhhO1+HzFf246aw@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB3710195708AAA808B3D08EC29B580@MN2PR11MB3710.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <2feb1778-7770-8a09-2066-a84663ff6b2e@cs.tcd.ie> <BN7PR11MB2547EA5F6DF70BC2B9C21E64C9550@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:32:26 -0500
Message-ID: <18338.1576186346@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/ID03N6WYiBE2Eum6OASyVAjwZkU>
Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] [EXTERNAL]Re: Clarification Question for the Comment from Eric Rescorla (
X-BeenThere: secdispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Dispatch <secdispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 21:32:30 -0000

Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) <pkampana@cisco.com> wrote:
    >> Sorry if I've missed it, but who do we have that is calling for a
    >> post-quantum PKI solution to be developed now, but who is not
    >> promoting one such?

    > We (Cisco) will need PQ PKI (not WebPKI) solution for image
    > signing. When talking about chips that are designed now and will live
    > in the field for decades, we would like to design today instead of wait
    > for 2030. Note we are spending (not making) money on PKI, so we are not
    > trying to corner a market.

As a variation of what EKR asked, you are asking for PQ-PKI, but your use
case is image signing.

I can see why having a set of chainable signed objects (i.e. a PKI) would
more useful than just a hash-based signature, if you can do it simply.

It seems like draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-09 plus draft-birkholz-core-coid might
be useful here.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-