IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Spasm] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-02

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 14 March 2017 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41491129470 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 08:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=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 hi9JFsDynQ7J for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 08:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09A43128DF6 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 08:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 247793004AE for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:23:48 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id vskLZOWRN1_r for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:23:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.home (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9C2C30009D; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:23:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <80485F90-EDF8-42D7-A314-837E1358A121@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_256D5E88-B970-46AD-9EB2-975F1D7000C9"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:23:49 -0400
In-Reply-To: <415CC5D7-5766-4A6D-9649-E8D9B7BF92D7@vigilsec.com>
Cc: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
References: <E45ADD28-9E35-4220-A45F-692F1DEFC5D8@vigilsec.com> <531F42E9-E7B2-4A40-B373-F616A4076FC2@vigilsec.com> <0a1701d29971$25d620f0$718262d0$@augustcellars.com> <415CC5D7-5766-4A6D-9649-E8D9B7BF92D7@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/1OeUCqA7i4oh5z5-HfTovH7zj9c>
Subject: Re: [Spasm] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-02
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:23:50 -0000

> The reference would need to change to allow other curves, right?
> 
>>> For clarity, I think that we should change Section 4.3 as follows:
>>> 
>>> OLD
>>>  MUST- support RSA with SHA-256.
>>> NEW
>>>  MUST- support RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 with SHA-256.
>>> 
>>> and
>>> 
>>> OLD
>>>  The following are the RSA and RSASSA-PSS key size … NEW
>>>  The following are the RSA PKCS#1 v1.5  and RSASSA-PSS key size ...
>> 
>> I am not sure about this.  I think that if this is done then it needs to be done on a much larger basis that what you have suggested here.  I worry about this.  Would an additional terminology  item added to section 1.1 be sufficient?
> 
> Yes, that would be fine with me.

It looks like you made the text changes in Section 4.3.  The changes in -03 resolve my comment.

Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email