[Secdispatch] Can Composite sigs move back to LAMPS?

Mike Ounsworth <Mike.Ounsworth@entrustdatacard.com> Thu, 16 January 2020 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=27705bc12=Mike.Ounsworth@entrustdatacard.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 998631208CD for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:13:16 -0800 (PST)
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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=entrustdatacardcorp.onmicrosoft.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 le_cyUnIsuY2 for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:13:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.entrustdatacard.com (mx2.entrustdatacard.com [204.124.80.222]) (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 6878B1209A6 for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:13:15 -0800 (PST)
IronPort-SDR: cyLB24a1R8+DousqAxBkqs5jj8BFuCUHcyPlFQvZLTAmOTK3H5gSVfVuQqltrbVnvXZW/O2Yho jByU++FRUKIw==
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,327,1574143200"; d="scan'208";a="7698755"
Received: from pmspex01.corporate.datacard.com (HELO owa.entrustdatacard.com) ([192.168.211.29]) by pmspesa04inside.corporate.datacard.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384; 16 Jan 2020 13:13:14 -0600
Received: from PMSPEX04.corporate.datacard.com (192.168.211.51) by pmspex01.corporate.datacard.com (192.168.211.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:13:14 -0600
Received: from NAM10-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (172.28.1.8) by PMSPEX04.corporate.datacard.com (192.168.211.51) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:13:14 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=RPz/h88pUhE0SOnAawSZj+1J+bgaX+99MsGF8yb07zdi1uFVkCNd2axkrGorwFF4xyGU9KAPf0h906c+cWg4NRxUSC/2ULtS9xf56WjBq7m5X7M+pVpMx9vxW0W/z+QM9UhnLBUFH/h6y5I4LskQWSdvL2upD9TRUQlSrZCiutmuA67zdH2a9dS551ybXg9y5EkVCs3qJ9p85v6xfxl85UvZzU7b4SajsYs6IfOcd1iwoEYEoqM6reke4N8aWrjTz7jESB8Mgj3riQkVQLFnmWYVe6zLT6+nntHTqSukBS05RwZbJgkSdN93Y2i2YT6PJUL3PzlJV23T8Ixn8vL3Ag==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=7Me5+2oXO7Z0UCxzGy/2jmO3fp1PVve7i23j049OAb0=; b=XNRZSjwoLpbLxRjSnuBeDcH9HJ3Cv6AdMGuk8Sd3m2v32VVha07ERW+1o14nVaA9kLrHJmr2ZCXFbLIs9Dm0aFS72y/9VomskKCK/GiA/aIznLUwNaDQtu9yvSnNlEoPydRkswwLIFzMxnMPj1GyvccDuWVlgZ4oJ85GPtmOy3zmTEipBZulRRJKljJ6kKVbfrG/mTbcPDKNl84xwDaNuEHvuJ4xyigotVa4rfUiACm9BEjQDjwK59cJMHAG3xGx/UbJMvVpJQ4vNRlac97jfGljmvBvgk4vDpgZeJKsQbnTQBmkNaAewBgpvxjmT1OmS04NKDQc0ik3HuCpl8E7ow==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=entrustdatacard.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=entrustdatacard.com; dkim=pass header.d=entrustdatacard.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=entrustdatacardcorp.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-entrustdatacardcorp-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=7Me5+2oXO7Z0UCxzGy/2jmO3fp1PVve7i23j049OAb0=; b=yKEeLMG/GTcMopoOGu1zr1xfI0dI7rE+Wkq1cP6wa6scKbnn8zZfGaK2kfteTIOPOzMCffz4ti9Q2W8I4he9Y+Hw1XSPzvtGqg7yqLcWvwWSLnHpvlcb2YWIIu6vFeshhwhb+igYQ+EgfvgdYUU/rXFWxIYTTJ03sikXeVAUhtU=
Received: from DM6PR11MB3883.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.255.61.32) by DM6PR11MB4345.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.132.251.84) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2644.20; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 19:13:13 +0000
Received: from DM6PR11MB3883.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::34ac:ed41:2759:3392]) by DM6PR11MB3883.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::34ac:ed41:2759:3392%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2623.018; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 19:13:13 +0000
From: Mike Ounsworth <Mike.Ounsworth@entrustdatacard.com>
To: IETF SecDispatch <secdispatch@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Can Composite sigs move back to LAMPS?
Thread-Index: AdXMlh5Ba3U4rdZGTG6zfD9kbyUHDg==
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 19:13:13 +0000
Message-ID: <DM6PR11MB388377406A1AAEDCA397749C9B360@DM6PR11MB3883.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Mike.Ounsworth@entrustdatacard.com;
x-originating-ip: [204.124.81.102]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: eb800077-080b-4be7-7d0e-08d79ab821ff
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR11MB4345:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR11MB4345D2C83EA8BE19904E79479B360@DM6PR11MB4345.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8882;
x-forefront-prvs: 02843AA9E0
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(136003)(346002)(366004)(39860400002)(376002)(396003)(199004)(189003)(478600001)(52536014)(6916009)(71200400001)(2906002)(66556008)(33656002)(5660300002)(86362001)(66946007)(186003)(66476007)(26005)(66446008)(81156014)(81166006)(6506007)(55016002)(8676002)(316002)(8936002)(76116006)(64756008)(7696005)(9686003)(4744005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM6PR11MB4345; H:DM6PR11MB3883.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 02ITiUIxNTq+EEbtayKWJTEvuB/eutbw0RfxZxe7lEFFeVabTs0UP1xHYBB8TAj0cPJVFVCAUjYq46DOezGx0huHkC4f3k3VyIagQiQBg3KKa15FDA7OKAHv/G8IWNFyE63GbkApyf2j4ypsOKGB7rLVNNM6IQOm7nge4n6KqZyMeR9zHc4sWwdmYNAz0NYvD4Be5y3FsR6yx1dTUT83n1HOOiPVRSaaypFYkTZRChIn3y201RZK27DQecLIS2Un72vf2U4HXgIxFw7Pn+SjXZIMz3xSmkqbZIfYTNKWTqKAf4tSpGKE/y1zDmoKbJzkrq4gN82F6Ks1pNoB+1GmlgNAibiqxCpjoFW5eDhkr/UjbvUEmM+UND0AHIuBVJbYk3LyAhJMCXkHmH86gRUXRElSxLb2Px4JeXJDG61iUrnkqlKGHNit3UjoyjjkbEpx
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: eb800077-080b-4be7-7d0e-08d79ab821ff
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Jan 2020 19:13:13.0486 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: f46cf439-27ef-4acf-a800-15072bb7ddc1
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 1LjBACwL74mAbFHKgWHo6A6cRy243SSqYPYsnsXjh7k5l2mySIqx2i7QFMLdfFMrHFBY8Fl733nnD/7tjNWG1UT/RCOxxRCrJeOG07fVAv3ulN1g/1Gmc20cIpY/yQQd
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR11MB4345
X-OriginatorOrg: entrustdatacard.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/xoMVUyGYqNIM3ghCUzbXGuFIguQ>
Subject: [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: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 19:13:17 -0000

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