RE: More Re: Comments on cmskea
"Jim Schaad (Exchange)" <jimsch@EXCHANGE.MICROSOFT.com> Fri, 07 May 1999 18:41 UTC
Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09233 for <smime-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 7 May 1999 14:41:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id KAA12646 for ietf-smime-bks; Fri, 7 May 1999 10:43:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from doggate.exchange.microsoft.com (doggate.exchange.microsoft.com [131.107.88.55]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA12641 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Fri, 7 May 1999 10:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by doggate.exchange.microsoft.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <JYWN9MKS>; Fri, 7 May 1999 10:44:56 -0700
Message-ID: <2FBF98FC7852CF11912A0000000000010ECB5F1D@DINO>
From: "Jim Schaad (Exchange)" <jimsch@EXCHANGE.MICROSOFT.com>
To: "'jsp@jgvandyke.com'" <jsp@jgvandyke.com>, "Ietf-Smime (E-mail)" <ietf-smime@imc.org>
Subject: RE: More Re: Comments on cmskea
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 10:44:43 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Sender: owner-ietf-smime@imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smime/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smime-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
John, After having worked my way through this, I think it is completely acceptable and should be done. This addresses the major problem I had and make things more in line with the D-H items. jim -----Original Message----- From: jsp@jgvandyke.com [mailto:jsp@jgvandyke.com] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 10:36 AM To: Ietf-Smime (E-mail) Subject: More Re: Comments on cmskea Jim and friends, Please substitute "id-kEAKeyEncryptionAlgorithm" for "id-KEA" in my earlier message. Also, change the definition to: "id-kEAKeyEncryptionAlgorithm OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {joint-iso-ccitt(2) country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101) dod(2) infosec(1) algorithms(1) kEAKeyEncryptionAlgorithm (24)}. - John Pawling Previous message: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim, Thank you very much for your feedback regarding the "CMS KEA and SKIPJACK Conventions" (CMSKEA) I-D. I apologize for not answering your message sooner. I believe that you make an excellent point that the id-keyExchangeAlgorithm OID is overused in CMSKEA. In fact, the situation is slightly worse than what you describe. I added bullet 2 to your list as follows. 1. RFC2528: id-keyExchangeAlgorithm is used in a certificate to identify the algorithm type of the public key. The parameters field in this case is an OCTET STRING identifying the group parameters for the key. 2. CMSKEA, Sec 4.2, 3rd para: id-keyExchangeAlgorithm can be used in a keyAgreementRecipientInfo originatorKey to identify the type of the public key. The parameters field in this case is an OCTET STRING identifying the group parameters for the key. 3. CMSKEA, Sec 4.2.1, 4th para: id-keyExchangeAlgorithm is used in the KeyAgreementRecipientInfo keyEncryptionAlgorithm field. In this case the parameters field is KeyWrapAlgorithm (using id-fortezzaWrap80 OID). 4. CMSKEA, Sec 4.3, 2nd para: id-keyExchangeAlgorithm is used in KEKRecipientInfo keyEncryptionAlgorithm field. In this case the parameters field is KeyWrapAlgorithm (using id-fortezzaWrap80 OID). I agree with your proposed change for CMSKEA, Sec 4.3, 2nd para. I don't agree with your proposed change for CMSKEA, Sec 4.2.1, 4th para, because it contradicts CMS section 12.3.1 which states: "Key agreement algorithm identifiers are located in the EnvelopedData RecipientInfos KeyAgreeRecipientInfo keyEncryptionAlgorithm...fields. Key wrap algorithm identifiers are located in the KeyWrapAlgorithm parameters within the EnvelopedData RecipientInfos KeyAgreeRecipientInfo keyEncryptionAlgorithm ... fields." Recommend the following: 1) Continue to use the id-keyExchangeAlgorithm OID as stated in bullets 1 and 2 above. 2) Define a new OID for use as stated in bullet 3. Recommend the following OID be registered in the Registry of INFOSEC Technical Objects: id-kEA OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {joint-iso-ccitt(2) country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101) dod(2) infosec(1) algorithms(1) kEA (23)}. The parameters field for this OID will be KeyWrapAlgorithm (using id-fortezzaWrap80 OID). 3) As you proposed, change CMSKEA, Sec 4.3, 2nd para to state that the id-fortezzaWrap80 OID (with NULL parameters) is used in KEKRecipientInfo keyEncryptionAlgorithm field. Please let me know if you agree with these recommendations. If anybody else has comments, please let me know. If there are no objections from anybody, then I will change the CMSKEA I-D to implement the aforementioned recommendations and I will apply for the new id-kEA OID. - John Pawling At 09:37 PM 4/29/99 -0700, Jim Schaad (Exchange) wrote: >John, > >I am having a big problem with the amount of overload going on for the the >OID id-keyExchangeAlgorithm. It appears to be used in three unique >locations in encoding an encrypted message and has different meanings and >two different set of parameters. > > >1. id-keyExchangeAlgorithm is used in a certificate to identify the >asymmetric algorithm. The parameters in this case are an OCTET STRING >identifing the group parameters for the key. > >2. id-keyExchangeAlgorithm is used in the KeyAgreementRecipientInfo >keyEncryptionAlgorithm field. In this case the parameters is >KeyWrapAlgorithm (using id-fortezzaWrap80 as the algorithm). > >3. id-keyExchangeAlgorithm is used in KEKRecipientInfo >keyEncryptionAlgorithm field. In this case a completely different algorithm >is being referenced and again the parameters are KeyWrapAlgorithm. > > >I strong suggest that we change this as follows: > >1. id-keyExchangeAlgorithm is used in certificate w/parameters and in >KeyAgreementRecipeintInfo w/o parameters. > >2. id-fortezzaWrap80 is used in KEKRecipientInfo for the KEK algorithm >again w/o parameters are they are not needed. > >This should work unless we belive that there would ever be a different >content encryption algorithm for KEA. > > >jim > >
- More Re: Comments on cmskea John Pawling
- RE: More Re: Comments on cmskea Jim Schaad (Exchange)
- RE: More Re: Comments on cmskea John Pawling
- Re: More Re: Comments on cmskea John Pawling
- Re: More Re: Comments on cmskea Russ Housley
- Re: More Re: Comments on cmskea Russ Housley
- Re: More Re: Comments on cmskea (John Pawling)