IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] Call for Adoption of draft-housley-lamps-cms-update-alg-id-protect

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 15 January 2020 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 15E61120090 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 06:34:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 QzSj1YMsTgE1 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 06:34:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E2C2120033 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 06:34:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E04CF3897B; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:34:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851C2124A; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:34:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com>
cc: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <BN8PR14MB30594A4530DF82D275B5FF5483340@BN8PR14MB3059.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BN8PR14MB3059F2B2147121403FCAC8A9832D0@BN8PR14MB3059.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> <BN8PR14MB30594A4530DF82D275B5FF5483340@BN8PR14MB3059.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:34:34 -0500
Message-ID: <27503.1579098874@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/Ap1EBsygFGi4mOFHnV4dHP1UG1M>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Call for Adoption of draft-housley-lamps-cms-update-alg-id-protect
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: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:34:41 -0000

I have read draft-housley-lamps-cms-update-alg-id-protect, and as I
understand it, it simply removes a degree of freedom to select non-identical
message digest algorithms.  Where there were two choices, they are now
constrained to be the same choice.
The signal for one of the choices was already protected in a
signature, while the other was not.
(RFC8366 and BRSKI makes use of 5652 format vouchers, so this matters to me.
I am unaware of any ability to choose different algorithms, nor would I want to)

I support adopting this document.
I am not fond of "patch" documents, but it seems too soon to consider
RFC5652bis.



--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email