IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] OID für KEM?

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Fri, 08 October 2021 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 4AF9E3A09C6 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 10:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 drcVfUQsGaag for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 10:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 E4CDE3A07C3 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 10:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 198HHApe021763 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 8 Oct 2021 13:17:16 -0400
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2021 10:17:10 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: Uri Blumenthal <uri@ll.mit.edu>, LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20211008171710.GU4103@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <5BA17D7A-F19D-474B-8DD8-8EB36A363818@ll.mit.edu> <C7F5365D-3B42-49CF-AA4F-E6974F071422@vigilsec.com> <FBE3CC86-6DEE-4955-9BA8-3FE2DDF35F4E@ll.mit.edu> <8A3163D9-EB86-487E-B0D4-75A39AB44797@vigilsec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8A3163D9-EB86-487E-B0D4-75A39AB44797@vigilsec.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/4Hs-QPEAuhAKRTFew7UJo431qTU>
Subject: Re: [lamps] OID für KEM?
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: Fri, 08 Oct 2021 17:17:24 -0000

On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 01:13:01PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
> Uri:
> > 
> > On 10/8/21, 12:55, "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> > 
> >>   Researchers are going to assign OIDs to use in their projects.
> >>   A group of researchers might collaborate to use the same OIDs.
> > 
> > Understood, thanks!
> > 
> >>   My worry is that these will not ever go away.
> > 
> > I don't see a problem in this. 
> > 
> > E.g., Blake2 is not the final choice - but some apps use it, so what's wrong with having an interoperable way of identifying it?
> 
> That is not my point at all.  My worry is with the winning algorithms.  I worry that implementations will have to support the researcher-assigned OID and the NIST-assigned OID.

Sounds like what happened at https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/16594
-- OpenSSL waited for the final SHA3 to implement, but then got asked to
also expose pre-standardization keccak.

-Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email