IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Spasm] Suggestions for draft-schaad-rfc5751-bis-00.txt

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 02 May 2016 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 19E0512D5B6 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2016 11:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 MuY8HpCyK_8j for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2016 11:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88C012D14E for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 May 2016 11:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (ronin.smetech.net [209.135.209.5]) by mail.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5579AF24035; Mon, 2 May 2016 14:18:24 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from mail.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z+YPkMjlLlqW; Mon, 2 May 2016 14:02:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [5.5.33.72] (vpn.snozzages.com [204.42.252.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64DE5F2402E; Mon, 2 May 2016 14:18:23 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFTDvC51e2ku8f1P+9=U7de792vzYcaL0YrbRgEbM3k3eNf6ag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 14:18:17 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E05C2E4F-07E3-4225-BC39-43013E776906@vigilsec.com>
References: <CAFTDvC5g5CeY0V4xO3NahYc226BMOF5QCCK41_admqiz88ZZ3Q@mail.gmail.com> <0afb01d1a355$d064a720$712df560$@augustcellars.com> <CAFTDvC51e2ku8f1P+9=U7de792vzYcaL0YrbRgEbM3k3eNf6ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Laetitia Baudoin <lbaudoin@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/vuC2xw2WBCuzrAA2vDcbZhdJU08>
Cc: spasm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Spasm] Suggestions for draft-schaad-rfc5751-bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 02 May 2016 18:18:26 -0000

Laetitia:

> Jim, we agree that authenticated encryption doesn't provide
> authentication. My point was that the reason given in the draft is
> misleading.

Isn’t this as simple as saying that confidentiality and integrity are provided when auth-enveloped-data is employed?

Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email