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

[Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>]

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 10:49 PM
> To: Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>
> Cc: 'The IESG' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
'Russ
> Housley' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 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 <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:37 PM
> > > To: Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: 'The IESG' <[e-mail]>;
> > > [e-mail];
> > 'Russ
> > > Housley' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> > > [e-mail]
> > > 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 <[e-mail]>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 7:04 AM
> > > > > To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> > > > > Cc: [e-mail]; Russ Housley
> > > > > <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> > > > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > > > 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