Re: Why KEM?, RE: Charter Update
"Housley, Russ" <rhousley@rsasecurity.com> Wed, 01 May 2002 17:39 UTC
Received: from above.proper.com (mail.imc.org [208.184.76.43]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10264 for <smime-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 May 2002 13:39:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g41HNBJ20499 for ietf-smime-bks; Wed, 1 May 2002 10:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vulcan.rsasecurity.com (vulcan.rsasecurity.com [204.167.114.130]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with SMTP id g41HN9a20493 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Wed, 1 May 2002 10:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sdtihq24.securitydynamics.com by vulcan.rsasecurity.com via smtpd (for mail.imc.org [208.184.76.43]) with SMTP; 1 May 2002 17:21:44 UT
Received: from ebola.securitydynamics.com (ebola.securid.com [192.80.211.4]) by sdtihq24.securid.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA06753 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Wed, 1 May 2002 13:21:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from exna00.securitydynamics.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ebola.securitydynamics.com (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id g41HNAT22866 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Wed, 1 May 2002 13:23:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by exna00.securitydynamics.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <HKX1Z9TQ>; Wed, 1 May 2002 13:20:35 -0400
Received: from HOUSLEY-LAP.rsasecurity.com (HOUSLEY-LAP [10.3.16.38]) by exna00.securitydynamics.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id HKX1Z9TL; Wed, 1 May 2002 13:20:28 -0400
From: "Housley, Russ" <rhousley@rsasecurity.com>
To: Mike Just <Mike.Just@entrust.com>
Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020501131918.02cd7b58@exna07.securitydynamics.com>
X-Sender: rhousley@exna07.securitydynamics.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 13:21:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Why KEM?, RE: Charter Update
In-Reply-To: <9A4F653B0A375841AC75A8D17712B9C90257AA2D@sottmxs04.entrust .com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smime/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smime.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smime-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
I think that I did respond to Robert's question. At IETF 53, I gave a presentation on this subject. You can see the slides at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02mar/slides/smime-1/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02mar/slides/smime-1/index.html.
Russ
At 01:14 PM 5/1/2002 -0400, Mike Just wrote:
It's not clear to me that there is consensus on this path (unfortunately, there seemed to be no reaction on either side to this email) as reflected in the latest version of the Charter.
I'd like to re-iterate Robert's concerns (from his e-mail of 04/19/2002) and ask the fundamental question: Why are we even considering KEM when we already have a sufficient solution with OAEP?
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Housley, Russ [mailto:rhousley@rsasecurity.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 5:14 PM
To: ietf-smime@imc.org
Subject: RE: Charter Update
Is the WG consensus that RSA-OAEP, RSA-KEM, and AES should be in separate,
independent documents. This would allow AES to be used with any of the key
management techniques?
Russ
- Why KEM?, RE: Charter Update Mike Just
- Re: Why KEM?, RE: Charter Update Housley, Russ
- RE: Why KEM?, RE: Charter Update Mike Just
- RE: Why KEM?, RE: Charter Update Kaliski, Burt
- RE: Why KEM?, RE: Charter Update Robert Zuccherato
- RE: Why KEM?, RE: Charter Update Kaliski, Burt