Re: [lamps] WGLC: draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-02

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Wed, 05 September 2018 15:20 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 CC850130DF4 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 08:20:14 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 wprWRkMVN30G for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 08:20:11 -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 A5DD6130E3C for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 08:20:10 -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; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 08:16:07 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: "'Dang, Quynh (Fed)'" <quynh.dang@nist.gov>
CC: 'Russ Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>, 'Tim Hollebeek' <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com>, "'Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)'" <pkampana@cisco.com>, <spasm@ietf.org>
References: <00b801d42b61$cf059a60$6d10cf20$@augustcellars.com> <DM6PR09MB2746C78671FFE7B83F0A83ADF3020@DM6PR09MB2746.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR09MB2746C78671FFE7B83F0A83ADF3020@DM6PR09MB2746.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 08:19:56 -0700
Message-ID: <083901d4452b$e97f95b0$bc7ec110$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_083A_01D444F1.3D2355C0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIojsMUXeIT61JfTuky7VuNmG9n7gEJS6YepDDvX8A=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/vIO-7Q-wDHD7-CKc3hB0JN1i_Rs>
Subject: Re: [lamps] WGLC: draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-02
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 05 Sep 2018 15:20:15 -0000

Mostly looks fine - one comment below

 

From: Dang, Quynh (Fed) <quynh.dang@nist.gov> 
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 7:08 AM
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
Cc: 'Russ Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>om>; Tim Hollebeek
<tim.hollebeek@digicert.com>om>; Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)
<pkampana@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-02

 

Hi Jim,

 

We appreciate your review and comments.

 

By the co-chairs' direction, let's try to improve the doc using your
comments.

 

  _____  

From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com <mailto:ietf@augustcellars.com> >
Sent: Friday, August 3, 2018 3:40 PM
To: draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake@ietf.org
<mailto:draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake@ietf.org> 
Subject: WGLC: draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-02 

 

Not ready for progression.

* Run the NITS on this document and fix them.  Examples of problems are the
fact that MUST language section is missing, possible incorrect references,
and you have lines that are too long.

 

Comment 1: correct. Will fix it.

 


*  Introduction - I have a problem with the cardinality of items in the
second and third paragraphs here.  I do not ask that you fix the problems
that I have but you should be ready to address this is you get the same
questions from the RFC Editor or the IESG.  I would consider SHAKE to be a
family of extendable-output hash functions and thus has a cardinality of
one.  The two specific hash functions have a cardinality of greater than
one.  The question of cardinality comes in terms of the usage of 'A', 'is',
'are'.

 

Comment 2: "the SHAKE hash functions " in second paragraph in the intro.
should be changed to "the SHAKEs" for a smooth read.  A SHAKE is defined as
one function with variable output length.  



* Introduction - paragraph 2 - I find the last sentence to be difficult to
read.  The usage of 'and' here seems to be incorrect and it may be difficult
to figure out which pair comes first - resistance or function.

 

Comment 3:

It would read better if the sentence  "The corresponding collision and
preimage resistance security levels for SHAKE128 and SHAKE256 are
respectively
   min(d/2,128) and min(d,128) and min(d/2,256) and min(d,256) bits."  to be
replaced with "The corresponding collision and second preimage resistance
strengths for SHAKE128 are min(d/2,128) and min(d,128) respectively. And,
the corresponding collision and second preimage resistance strengths for
SHAKE256 are min(d/2,256) and min(d,256) bits respectively. "



* Introduction - paragraph 3 - I am unaware that ECDSA has a mask generating
function associated with it.  This sentence needs to be cleaned up

 

 

Comment 4: This sentence " 

SHAKEs can be used as the message digest function (to hash the
   message to be signed) and as the hash function in the mask generating
   functions in RSASSA-PSS and ECDSA." should be replaced with " 

SHAKEs can be used as the message digest function (to hash the
   message to be signed) in RSASSA-PSS and ECDSA and as the hash function in
the mask generating functions in RSASSA-PSS."



* Introduction - paragraph 3 - Consider putting in a reference to the
algorithm identifiers that are not changing.  Probably overkill but still
useful

 

Comment 5: Adding " see section 3 below" at the end of this sentence: "In
this document, we define four new OIDs for RSASSA-PSS and ECDSA when
SHAKE128 and SHAKE256 are used as hash functions.".

 


* Identifiers - This section needs to nail down all parameters associated w/
the different SHAKE functions when used here.  Otherwise you end up with the
first assumption that I made which was d = 128 for SHAKE128 which would not
produce an acceptable result.

 

Comment 6: The specification of output lengths of the 2 SHAKEs is in
Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.  Adding a sentence " See Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2
for specification of a required output length for each use of SHAKE128 or
SHAKE256 in RSASSA-PSS and ECDSA."

 



* Signatures - Para #3 - you refer to section 3 for OIDs, but they are not
there for public keys.

 

Comment 7: Adding this "

Conforming CA implementations MUST specify the algorithms explicitly
   by using the OIDs specified in Section 3 when encoding  public keys for
RSASSA-PSS and ECDSA with SHAKE signatures in certificates and CRLs." as the
first paragraph in Section 4.2 "Public keys". 



* IANA Considerations is incorrect and MUST be updated

 

 

Comment 8: IANA Considerations is incorrect and will be updated.

 


* Why is there no reference to deterministic ECDSA signatures in the
document.

 

Comment 9: Deterministic ECDSA has a different signing function because of
the way k is generated. The working group has not adopted this option yet.
Verification is the same.  

 

[JLS] If you want to say that it is a different signature algorithm that is
fine.  I'll call and raise.  It should be that it is required that ECDSA w/
SHAKE implements deterministic ECDSA and MUST NOT use a random generator for
k.



* The ASN.1 module is absent and needs to be instantiated.  Even doing so
with TBD is sufficient for now.

 

Comment 10: Yes. 

The ASN.1 module is absent and needs to be instantiated. 

 


Are you ok with the proposed resolutions ?

 

Regards,

Quynh.