IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] LAMPS Re-charter

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 18 March 2021 18:28 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 03AAD3A314F for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, 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 2H9ckVuUVFNn for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 676713A314E for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3419300B6F for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:28:49 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ihoS5-L2NVjF for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:28:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.161] (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A539C300AA6; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:28:47 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR11MB438011635C04A784326110019F699@DM6PR11MB4380.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:28:47 -0400
Cc: LAMPS <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EBCFA405-27E0-4915-B59C-4A2ABDA891A7@vigilsec.com>
References: <5A22DF7B-BCA5-42F6-BB95-D4F70FDB1996@vigilsec.com> <951CAF0F-7461-4057-B95E-D1F6CAE61D02@vigilsec.com> <4c18a9982cc94df2952d7b2cbae89d99@cert.org> <7B82765F-9C7A-4C4D-B115-A2835B44E6D6@vigilsec.com> <b3fdb1ac051b4ae0ad748782daebead2@cert.org> <ACE141CD-B0B7-45D3-B54F-BE25275A0D25@vigilsec.com> <E21F9B2E-A269-48D9-ABDC-1B10CDBE44E8@akamai.com> <DM6PR11MB438011635C04A784326110019F699@DM6PR11MB4380.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
To: Mike Ounsworth <Mike.Ounsworth@entrust.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/xGVfZqkIHCk9zsviOODHGJjGjgo>
Subject: Re: [lamps] LAMPS Re-charter
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: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:28:55 -0000

Better words welcome.  I was trying to use words that would allow a mix of KEM, key transport, and key agreement.

Russ

> On Mar 18, 2021, at 12:36 PM, Mike Ounsworth <Mike.Ounsworth=40entrust.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 5.* look great to me.
> 
> Musing out loud about 5.b.i) “hybrid key establishment that combines shared secret values”. I'm wondering if there's anything weird PKIX does with encryption primitives that would need to get hybridized but isn't strictly a "shared secret"? DH-style interactive keyEx and contentEncryption-style non-interactive keyEx are definitely good. Decrypting a challenge nonce as a PoP, probably also good to do that as multiple independent shared secrets that you combine at the other end. Any other weird use of encryption primitives?
> 
> ---
> Mike Ounsworth
> 
> From: Spasm <spasm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Salz, Rich
> Sent: March 18, 2021 9:49 AM
> To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>; LAMPS <spasm@ietf.org>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [lamps] LAMPS Re-charter
> 
> WARNING: This email originated outside of Entrust.
> DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
> ________________________________________
> Maybe put 2&4 adjacent, but this looks like a nice charter.  I’ve never seen 5.b.ii levels  before.  Long live the Harvard Outline. :)
> 
> I don’t recall discussion of short-lived certs but I’m sure that flitted by when I was’t looking. 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email