[lamps] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis and draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis

[Tomas Gustavsson <[e-mail]>]

We have previously done a test implementation in EJBCA to validate the "indirect method - encrypted certificate" in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis-11#sect-5.2.8.3.2

Regards,
Tomas


________________________________
From: Brockhaus, Hendrik
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 7:58 AM
To: Mike Ounsworth; Russ Housley; LAMPS; [e-mail]; Tomas Gustavsson; David Hook; Sean Turner
Subject: AW: [lamps] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis and draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis


Russ, Mike



Thank you for requesting this review. I would also feel much better to have another review of the KEM-support.

  *   The KEM support for message protection is specified in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis-11#section-5.1.3.4. In short, the approach derives a symmetric key for MAC-based message protection from an authentic KEM shared secret.
  *   The KEM support for POP utilizes existing mechanisms, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis-11#section-4.3.4.



@Sean Turner<mailto:[e-mail]> You mentioned during last IETF, that you are considering adding KEM support in you CMC Update. Could you have a look on the approach we took in CMP and provide a review?



Hendrik





Von: Mike Ounsworth <Mike.Ounsworth=[e-mail]>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Juni 2024 21:18
An: Russ Housley <[e-mail]>; LAMPS <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Tomas Gustavsson <[e-mail]>; David Hook <[e-mail]>
Betreff: [lamps] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis and draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis



Russ, I agree. I am uncomfortable with this passing WGLC until it receives independent crypto review.



I’m gonna start poking people.



@[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

You promised me that Nokia would provide a cryptographic review of how we are supporting KEMs in CMP. I’m calling in any favours that you owe me! 😝



Also @Tomas Gustavsson<mailto:[e-mail]> and @David Hook<mailto:[e-mail]> are people with CMP implementations who could provide review.



---

Mike Ounsworth



From: Russ Housley <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 2:14 PM
To: LAMPS <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [lamps] Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis and draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis
Importance: High



I have only seen comments from me so far. On one hand, the vast bulk of the changes are from the already approved -updates documents. On the other hand, rfc4210bis adds support for certificates that contain KEM public keys. Please review! Russ



I have only seen comments from me so far.  On one hand, the vast bulk of the changes are from the already approved -updates documents.  On the other hand, rfc4210bis adds support for certificates that contain KEM public keys.  Please review!



Russ





> On Jun 5, 2024, at 11:50 AM, Russ Housley <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

>

> Title: Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure -- Certificate Management Protocol (CMP)

> Authors: H. Brockhaus, D. von Oheimb, M. Ounsworth, and J. Gray

> Datatracker: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis/__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZfglpvZO2Y3mBLWRXUoDUaN1hOLay7j2uwWMW_rntVjbNGcOxV4_Td8D3-6I3U6KfRBd-3ZHALhIx_HVsn1X81_9yqch$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis/__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZfglpvZO2Y3mBLWRXUoDUaN1hOLay7j2uwWMW_rntVjbNGcOxV4_Td8D3-6I3U6KfRBd-3ZHALhIx_HVsn1X81_9yqch$> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis/__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZfglpvZO2Y3mBLWRXUoDUaN1hOLay7j2uwWMW_rntVjbNGcOxV4_Td8D3-6I3U6KfRBd-3ZHALhIx_HVsn1X80xkeWvk$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis/__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZfglpvZO2Y3mBLWRXUoDUaN1hOLay7j2uwWMW_rntVjbNGcOxV4_Td8D3-6I3U6KfRBd-3ZHALhIx_HVsn1X80xkeWvk$>>

>

> Title: Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure -- HTTP Transfer for the Certificate Management Protocol (CMP)

> Authors: H. Brockhaus, D. von Oheimb, M. Ounsworth, and J. Gray

> Datatracker: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis/__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZfglpvZO2Y3mBLWRXUoDUaN1hOLay7j2uwWMW_rntVjbNGcOxV4_Td8D3-6I3U6KfRBd-3ZHALhIx_HVsn1X80xkeWvk$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis/__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZfglpvZO2Y3mBLWRXUoDUaN1hOLay7j2uwWMW_rntVjbNGcOxV4_Td8D3-6I3U6KfRBd-3ZHALhIx_HVsn1X80xkeWvk$>

>

>

> Should the LAMPS WG ask the IESG to publish these two documents as Standards-Track RFCs?  Please respond to this WG Last Call by 20 June 2024.

>

> For the LAMPS WG Chairs,

> Russ

>



_______________________________________________

Spasm mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>