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, 09 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
- Re: [lamps] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… Jim Schaad
- Re: [lamps] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… Benjamin Kaduk
- [lamps] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-la… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [lamps] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… Jim Schaad
- Re: [lamps] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [lamps] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… Jim Schaad
- Re: [lamps] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [lamps] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [lamps] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [lamps] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… Jim Schaad