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

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Tue, 10 July 2018 00:28 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 B1B3A130EC4; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 17:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 br1K0RvsZ6M7; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 17:28:46 -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 84D11130EB3; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 17:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 17:25:12 -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>
In-Reply-To: <20180705213656.GR60996@kduck.kaduk.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 17:28:33 -0700
Message-ID: <039a01d417e4$f1228260$d3678720$@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+HNCTYWwO8773Uu0GB5YWNsIoAJRu5EBATEQR2CjzcC+AA==
X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/RTnTgtBDWIbNqB1eqMRcFU8CE7U>
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, 10 Jul 2018 00:28:56 -0000


> -----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>; draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis@ietf.org;
'Russ
> Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>; 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>; 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.

> 
> > > 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.

Jim

> 
> 
> Thanks for the updates!
> 
> -Benjamin