Re: [lamps] Problems with the current ALGORITHM information object class

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Tue, 12 May 2020 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 097393A0BD5 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2020 07:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.26
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.173, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 TnqTVGVzmqs5 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2020 07:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (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 17C8E3A0CF6 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2020 07:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050102.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04CEuDiB020635; Tue, 12 May 2020 15:57:16 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=6YXdmAoWX1FVt3Erwz0gsMCjeO9B2GF7KN1GRGQWtxY=; b=ZlmefbIlPHfvx3UE8ZPsv+xASpHMAWm5HlEET1yf0bAa2dW/DnhFzwB5jOpZu8ZLhP2H ztnu8bnOyH5BT/TJiaR9FT5/NwI425DCPNTzhUaKPm5Kl1u90pRG20hYB6zryEEUqoY1 mUKQrEumyZ+72L9wKlVfaZNlEldSTbWSaWiA23dP6V+IsZ/o/L0c+SlI6aZlwR9BE+Yr y6na951dJRqkMFdjSoHi6DL88HSXSE19TX0/tJhEyzcui/nOo0FrThJk6mVue5s6i5/p tR9jTjsLlITRQkSrCBQ/EL08g1mD/5BuUx28IiDj+949BJGaiGIh2RdSmYy+WgMBiV52 Eg==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint7 (a72-247-45-33.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [72.247.45.33] (may be forged)) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 30whkjq7xx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 May 2020 15:57:15 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint7.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint7.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 04CElCiR014648; Tue, 12 May 2020 10:57:14 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.116]) by prod-mail-ppoint7.akamai.com with ESMTP id 30ywdu088u-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 May 2020 10:57:09 -0400
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.165.121) by ustx2ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.165.121) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 12 May 2020 09:56:30 -0500
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.121]) by ustx2ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.121]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Tue, 12 May 2020 09:56:30 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Erik Andersen <era@x500.eu>
CC: LAMPS <spasm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [lamps] Problems with the current ALGORITHM information object class
Thread-Index: AdYmysgWP4xsKPedQly3iSGlHws7SQBETt4AACquuQAAAtrBAP//x3mA
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 14:56:29 +0000
Message-ID: <B9ABCF64-ABE3-423D-8CE2-2BE79A6D1DF8@akamai.com>
References: <000001d62762$8385a360$8a90ea20$@x500.eu> <97737DBD-54DB-4336-A387-E22C59E78B11@vigilsec.com> <001f01d6285c$d614adb0$823e0910$@x500.eu> <15833649-2B4C-49ED-9ACD-6F9AF9B41FFD@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <15833649-2B4C-49ED-9ACD-6F9AF9B41FFD@vigilsec.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.37.20051002
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.36.167]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B9ABCF64ABE3423D8CE22BE79A6D1DF8akamaicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-12_04:2020-05-11, 2020-05-12 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-2002250000 definitions=main-2005120112
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-12_04:2020-05-11, 2020-05-12 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2005120113
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/2BL9K06_IEUAH6ld4f2pCyAYxW0>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Problems with the current ALGORITHM information object class
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: Tue, 12 May 2020 14:57:35 -0000


  *   However, I do not advocate a change that breaks  backward compatibiliy.

  *   Sure, there could be an interworking problem, but it can be handled. Implementations of a standard specifying the original algorithm will still interwork. Implementations of a standard specifying the modified algorithm will also interwork.


So algorithms that want to use the new constructs, *even if they are the same such as AES 128 GCM* will use a new OID?  If so, that’s okay with me.