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

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Tue, 03 July 2018 16:43 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 37DAD12F1AB; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 09:43:50 -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 FhsuWjWfJE4r; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 09:43:48 -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 0982F130E30; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 09:43:48 -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 09:40:32 -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>, <spasm@ietf.org>
References: <153056475779.16504.16273523283477340877.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <046701d412e2$59aee510$0d0caf30$@augustcellars.com> <4de6554b-0def-ce1d-5e1f-a02ee572c477@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4de6554b-0def-ce1d-5e1f-a02ee572c477@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 09:43:36 -0700
Message-ID: <047401d412ec$fec06330$fc412990$@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/ACfEMZIgDiSMgCffCvaA8Dtjoak2uJeAA==
X-Originating-IP: [12.171.40.194]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/ht_J0RsM4gGqpqCfgqw2Sz_kDaM>
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 16:43:51 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 9:10 AM
> To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>; 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis@ietf.org; 'Russ Housley'
> <housley@vigilsec.com>; lamps-chairs@ietf.org; spasm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10: (with
> COMMENT)
> 
> Jim --
> 
> Thanks for the quick response. Comments inline.
> 
> On 7/3/18 10:27 AM, Jim Schaad wrote:
> >
> >> §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.
> 
> Sure; I didn't expect to see them removed. I expected them to be annotated
> in some way; something like:
> 
> 
>    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)
> 
>    *Note: MD5 and SHA-1 are historic and no longer considered secure.
>     See section B.1 for details.

That makes sense.  Done

> 
> >    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.
> 
> I have a lot of sympathy for the challenges involved with generating
> correct examples. At the same time, I think it's  problematic to publish
> a document that deprecates an algorithm while simultaneously
> demonstrating its use. On the balance between these two factors, I think
> this document really needs to be updated so that the examples are
> consistent with the text.

Ok - I will put this on my list.  It is not a simple think to do.

> 
> /a