Re: [lamps] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 03 July 2018 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 0E1561310E5; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 09:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] 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 12NT1PfKZNoX; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 09:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84FBB131065; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 09:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w63GAOGw082281 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Jul 2018 11:10:28 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, "'The IESG'" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis@ietf.org, "'Russ Housley'" <housley@vigilsec.com>, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org
References: <153056475779.16504.16273523283477340877.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <046701d412e2$59aee510$0d0caf30$@augustcellars.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <4de6554b-0def-ce1d-5e1f-a02ee572c477@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 11:10:19 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <046701d412e2$59aee510$0d0caf30$@augustcellars.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/4O7GDnE0_x8wc71JX4PV6gPJ7TY>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 03 Jul 2018 16:14:56 -0000

Jim --

Thanks for the quick response. Comments inline.

On 7/3/18 10:27 AM, Jim Schaad wrote:
>
>> §3.5.3.2:
>>
>>>   The values to be placed in the micalg parameter SHOULD be from the
>>>   following:
>>>
>>>    Algorithm Value Used
>>>    MD5       md5
>>>    SHA-1     sha-1
>>>    SHA-224   sha-224
>>>    SHA-256   sha-256
>>>    SHA-384   sha-384
>>>    SHA-512   sha-512
>>>    Any other (defined separately in algorithm profile or "unknown" if
>>>              not defined)
>> The example then goes on to demonstrate the use of "micalg=sha-1".  This is
>> probably a misunderstanding on my part, but I thought that this document
>> was intending to mark MD5 and SHA-1 as historic for digesting content (cf.
>> §1.7 and §B.1). Wouldn't that mean they should be annotated as deprecated
>> in some way here? I would have also expected the example to use sha-256
>> or sha-512.
> In terms of the content of the table, this table is the only registry that exists for the values to be placed here.  This means that I have not removed any of the "historical" values as I believe that they need to be part of the table.

Sure; I didn't expect to see them removed. I expected them to be 
annotated in some way; something like:


   Algorithm Value Used
   MD5*      md5
   SHA-1*    sha-1
   SHA-224   sha-224
   SHA-256   sha-256
   SHA-384   sha-384
   SHA-512   sha-512
   Any other (defined separately in algorithm profile or "unknown" if
             not defined)

   *Note: MD5 and SHA-1 are historic and no longer considered secure.
    See section B.1 for details.

>    In terms of the following example, it is one of the examples that I did not re-generate as part of this document and thus is still setup with a micalg of sha-1.  While I could re-generate this example, it is correct as it is and has been validated.  I cannot have that same assurance if it is replaced.

I have a lot of sympathy for the challenges involved with generating 
correct examples. At the same time, I think it's  problematic to publish 
a document that deprecates an algorithm while simultaneously 
demonstrating its use. On the balance between these two factors, I think 
this document really needs to be updated so that the examples are 
consistent with the text.

/a