[lamps] Need SHAKE text strings, add to draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake?

Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com> Thu, 04 April 2019 04:49 UTC

Return-Path: <dev+ietf@seantek.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 7DF08120403 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 21:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 1u5l1qm9o2Fz for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 21:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out-2.mxes.net (smtp-out-2.mxes.net [205.237.194.127]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A52FD1203D5 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 21:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Customer-MUA (mua.mxes.net [10.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E4842753F for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 00:49:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
To: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <0d9b3a03-e20a-4daa-166a-4ef2cbeeba83@seantek.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 21:48:02 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Sent-To: <c3Bhc21AaWV0Zi5vcmc=>
X-Sender: tuffmail.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/1bH0cYMfulhpN_w8Gd7D8zZbDKo>
Subject: [lamps] Need SHAKE text strings, add to draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake?
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 04:49:41 -0000

I have a need to identify SHAKE128 and SHAKE256 algorithms by text strings.

There is an IANA registry aptly named “Hash Function Textual Names”: 
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/hash-function-text-names/hash-function-text-names.xhtml>.

I request the following change to draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake:

Change 6. IANA Considerations to read:

~~~

    IANA is directed to update the Hash Function Textual Names
    registry [RFC8122] with two additional entries for SHAKE128
    and SHAKE256. Table 1 contains the new values of this registry.

        +--------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
        | Hash Function Name |          OID            | Reference |
        +--------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
        |     "shake256"     | 2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.11 |  [THIS]   |
        |     "shake512"     | 2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.12 |  [THIS]   |
        +--------------------+-------------------------+-----------+


             Table 1: IANA Hash Function Textual Names Registry


~~~

Furthermore, RFC 8122 says that the registering Standards Track RFC has 
to update RFC 3279. So, the status of draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake is 
supposed to be changed to Updates: RFC 3279.

Thank you,

Sean