Re: [lamps] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10: (with COMMENT)

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Tue, 03 July 2018 15:27 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 36702130E68; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 08:27:38 -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 rNpK6zbk5cUK; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 08:27:35 -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 98CB0130DE1; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 08:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (12.171.40.194) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 08:24:21 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Adam Roach' <adam@nostrum.com>, '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>
References: <153056475779.16504.16273523283477340877.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <153056475779.16504.16273523283477340877.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 08:27:24 -0700
Message-ID: <046701d412e2$59aee510$0d0caf30$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQGT+dy+HKDrVqhJ/ACfEMZIgDiSMqT9wFyQ
X-Originating-IP: [12.171.40.194]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/TdPyH2IipOVX-2ht0NdrnoRzhKY>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 03 Jul 2018 15:27:38 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 1:53 PM
> 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: Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10: (with
> COMMENT)
> 
> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10: Yes
> 
> 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks to everyone who put work into updating this document. I have one
> comment that is either substantive or me just being confused, and several
> editorial nits.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §3.5.3.2:
> 
> >  The values to be placed in the micalg parameter SHOULD be from the
> >  following:
> >
> >   Algorithm Value Used
> >   MD5       md5
> >   SHA-1     sha-1
> >   SHA-224   sha-224
> >   SHA-256   sha-256
> >   SHA-384   sha-384
> >   SHA-512   sha-512
> >   Any other (defined separately in algorithm profile or "unknown" if
> >             not defined)
> 
> The example then goes on to demonstrate the use of "micalg=sha-1".  This is
> probably a misunderstanding on my part, but I thought that this document
> was intending to mark MD5 and SHA-1 as historic for digesting content (cf.
> §1.7 and §B.1). Wouldn't that mean they should be annotated as deprecated
> in some way here? I would have also expected the example to use sha-256
> or sha-512.

In terms of the content of the table, this table is the only registry that exists for the values to be placed here.  This means that I have not removed any of the "historical" values as I believe that they need to be part of the table.  In terms of the following example, it is one of the examples that I did not re-generate as part of this document and thus is still setup with a micalg of sha-1.  While I could re-generate this example, it is correct as it is and has been validated.  I cannot have that same assurance if it is replaced.

> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §2.2:
> 
> >  -  .  SHOULD support RSASSA-PSS with SHA-256.
> 
> There appears to be an extra "." at the beginning of this bullet

Fixed

> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §3.1:
> 
> >  S/MIME is used to secure MIME entities.  A MIME message is composed
> > of a MIME header and a MIME body, the body can consist of a single
> > part or of multiple parts.
> 
> Nit: "...MIME body. The body can..."

Fixed

> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §3.3:
> 
> >  The
> >  Enveloped-Only structure does not support authenticated symmetric
> > algorithms, use the .Authenticated Enveloped structure for these
> > algorithms.
> 
> Two nits: "...symmetric algorithms. Use the Authenticated..."

Fixed, but hard to figure out for non-monospaced fonts.
>                                   ^        ^
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §6:
> 
> >  S/MIME implementations almost universally use ephemeral-static rather
> > than static-static key agreement and do not use a shared secret for
> > encryption, this means that the first precondition is not met.
> 
> Nit: "...encryption. This means..."

Fixed