Re: [lamps] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Tue, 17 July 2018 13:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.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 53F76130DF5; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 06:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 fAKSJzMeF7vC; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 06:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D52F130EAC; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 06:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (31.133.140.188) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 05:56:33 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Benjamin Kaduk' <kaduk@mit.edu>
CC: 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis@ietf.org>, 'Russ Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>, <lamps-chairs@ietf.org>, <spasm@ietf.org>
References: <153079945499.11322.17868589339590763702.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <00a901d41484$2494b0f0$6dbe12d0$@augustcellars.com> <20180705213656.GR60996@kduck.kaduk.org> <039a01d417e4$f1228260$d3678720$@augustcellars.com> <20180710024903.GI59001@kduck.kaduk.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180710024903.GI59001@kduck.kaduk.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:00:00 -0400
Message-ID: <01ca01d41dce$14512e00$3cf38a00$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQIi+HNCTYWwO8773Uu0GB5YWNsIoAJRu5EBATEQR2ABmT7ZPQHd+rMTo73a8LA=
X-Originating-IP: [31.133.140.188]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/I30Y55a6Z0M7Xs74WBtylpJYBoo>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 17 Jul 2018 13:00:12 -0000

I still think that it is and was correct text.  However the entire paragraph
is now gone

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 10:49 PM
> To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
> Cc: 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis@ietf.org;
'Russ
> Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>om>; lamps-chairs@ietf.org; spasm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10:
(with
> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:28:33PM -0700, Jim Schaad wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:37 PM
> > > To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
> > > Cc: 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>rg>;
> > > draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis@ietf.org;
> > 'Russ
> > > Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>om>; lamps-chairs@ietf.org;
> > > spasm@ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on
draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10:
> > > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 10:18:04AM -0700, Jim Schaad wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 7:04 AM
> > > > > To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> > > > > Cc: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis@ietf.org; Russ Housley
> > > > > <housley@vigilsec.com>om>; lamps-chairs@ietf.org;
> > > > > housley@vigilsec.com; spasm@ietf.org
> > > > > Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on
> > > > > draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> > > > >
> > > > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> > > > > draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10: Discuss
> > > > >
> > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply
> > > > > to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel
> > > > > free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Please refer to
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > > > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
here:
> > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > ----
> > > > > --
> > > > > COMMENT:
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > ----
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Section 2.7.2
> > > > >
> > > > > With "Algorithms such as RC2"; "Algorithms such as TripleDES",
> > > > > I'm not sure what to make of "such as" in these statements --
> > > > > what are the attributes that would qualify for sufficient
> > > > > similarity to match the "such as", other than equality?
> > > >
> > > > I would probably put DES in the same category as RC2 and Camellia
> > > > in the
> > > same category as TripleDES.  The first category is basically - this
> > > is
> > better than
> > > nothing but is not secure.  The second category is basically it is
> > > not
> > known to
> > > be unsecure, but neither is it something that we recommend as using
> > > any more.  (In this case 64-bit blocks vs 128-bit blocks).
> > >
> > > My question is more, "how do we expect the reader to make these
> > > classifications?"  You and I can agree on what they should be based
> > > on our prior experience in the field, but not all readers will share
> > > that
> > background
> > > information.
> >
> > I'll be honest, I don't expect readers who are not part of the world
> > of cryptographic algorithms to make this type of classification.  I
> > expect them to use the recommendations for what algorithms to use in
> > the document and leave it at that.  I expect that this explains where
> > things are for those who do know cryptographic algorithms and thus can
> > understand some of the differences.
> 
> Okay.  (This is just a COMMENT, so I will trust your judgment.)
> 
> > >
> > > > > Do we need to cite RFC 6454 for the specific "web origin"
> > > > > concept (as opposed to just the normal English usage of the word)?
> > > >
> > > > At this point in time I don't know that the idea of "web origin"
> > > > is going to match what is needed for S/MIME.  I would prefer to
> > > > punt this to a new document which addresses the problem directly
> > >
> > > How would a reader of this document know to look for this
> > > hypothetical new document?
> >
> > Given that we can't point to this hypothetical document I don't think
> > we can.  I think it will get some publicity when it is finally
> > published.  In the mean time I expect people to slog through the
> > eprint document and need to go several iterations to understand what
> > is being said their.  They talk about same origin in that document.
> 
> Okay.
> 
> -Benjamin