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, 03 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