IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Secdispatch] Can Composite sigs move back to LAMPS?

Carrick Bartle <cbartle891@icloud.com> Fri, 17 January 2020 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <cbartle891@icloud.com>
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 343D312007A for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:08:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=icloud.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 FJbQHxL0IELx for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:08:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from st43p00im-zteg10062001.me.com (st43p00im-zteg10062001.me.com [17.58.63.166]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CCF712008B for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:08:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=icloud.com; s=1a1hai; t=1579284488; bh=G7ZCBfzgfjRP+43DWT3PHP20V+hrRVrgaRDkF+yOQK8=; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Subject:Date:To; b=c8duBAIDCiUBnJCO6hIFHASfkjdSnGrZqnUV0Guasgmm36V3hXVVl0v0eRsLi9rsb ogrcPqj1tLCc+n9JUeG8Bos1h0Wy11jVKxPX5BHa/Wxlv1R/FqGQf61NCFFXeJ521c +2Lkxz6+mR8mE7UMXm+ZtJCq7ZfDJYEJ4wj6Kk1GQfxr7eDN6ovp2vBayJ1F52XrwK mVvc+YUAlz3/GSwoB396/85CDmq750TiaRG3lKp4hvY7vIRp999TJQ5AMzl3158+d8 ZDnzFvjH+gY+fXooZRLqm4D//5q5wIlfnUh9aPp3rl90/Na8mppTrVvFWZJn2upKKM xPbBNGyAgLo1w==
Received: from [17.230.165.240] (unknown [17.230.165.240]) by st43p00im-zteg10062001.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F9596C0B60; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 18:08:08 +0000 (UTC)
From: Carrick Bartle <cbartle891@icloud.com>
Message-Id: <F29B9D40-63F9-47C0-BA02-906D2E1DDCAE@icloud.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_660C8889-78C4-478D-9907-36C2423DA22E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.3\))
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:08:02 -0800
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR11MB388377406A1AAEDCA397749C9B360@DM6PR11MB3883.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: IETF SecDispatch <secdispatch@ietf.org>
To: Mike Ounsworth <Mike.Ounsworth@entrustdatacard.com>
References: <DM6PR11MB388377406A1AAEDCA397749C9B360@DM6PR11MB3883.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.3)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2020-01-17_05:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=942 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-2001170142
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/S4PPal5f9dpUlhAS_bZhVDwiA70>
Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] Can Composite sigs move back to LAMPS?
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: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 18:08:19 -0000

From what I've gathered from the mailing list discussion on this topic (in particular, the lead time necessary for hardware), it strikes me that there is sufficient reason for this work to advance.


> On Jan 16, 2020, at 11:13 AM, Mike Ounsworth <Mike.Ounsworth@entrustdatacard.com> wrote:
> 
> Following up on in-room discussions at 106, and the ensuing list discussions, I'd like to ask for confirmation of the following points:
> 
> 1. There is enough interest in an obvious-and-straightforward implementation of composite signatures to continue working on it?
>   1a. The current draft for this is draft-ounsworth-pq-composite-sigs-02
> 
> 2. SecDispatch is assigning this back to LAMPS?
>   2a. The current draft might not be the most obvious-and-straightforward implementation; we're willing to simplify until it's in-scope for LAMPS.
> 
> ---
> Mike Ounsworth
> Software Security Architect, Entrust Datacard
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Secdispatch mailing list
> Secdispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email