Re: [lamps] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-06: (with COMMENT)
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 19 June 2018 02:57 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 B7A6A130F17; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 19:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=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 LWhS8GYKkLj0; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 19:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDB1F130E12; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 19:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w5J2uX8C087017 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 18 Jun 2018 21:56:34 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis@ietf.org, 'Russ Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org
References: <152937589667.3120.11885793911908033876.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <014f01d40778$da982120$8fc86360$@augustcellars.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <acbc3adf-4ee6-3b85-7d37-70a443102847@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 21:56:28 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <014f01d40778$da982120$8fc86360$@augustcellars.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/zGJAlsJ-MP2HYQk5bLf6TITXqf4>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-06: (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, 19 Jun 2018 02:57:10 -0000
On 6/18/18 9:54 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> >> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 7:38 PM >> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> >> Cc: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis@ietf.org; Russ Housley >> <housley@vigilsec.com>; lamps-chairs@ietf.org; housley@vigilsec.com; >> spasm@ietf.org >> Subject: Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-06: (with >> COMMENT) >> >> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-06: Yes >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email >> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory >> paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Thanks to everyone for the work put into updating this document. I >> reviewed the diffs from the previous RFC, and the changes all seem to make >> sense. I found a couple of minor editorial nits. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> §2.2.1: >> >>> Receiving agents MUST be able to parser and process a message >>> containing PKCS #6 extended certificates although ignoring those >>> certificates is expected behavior. >> Nit: "...be able to parse..." >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> §A.1: >> >>> - Hash functions used to validate signatures on historic messages >>> may longer be considered to be secure (see below). >> Nit: "...may no longer..." >> >>> While there >>> are not currently any known practical pre-image or second pre- >>> image attacks against MD5 or SHA-1, the fact they are no longer >>> considered to be collision resistant the security levels of the >>> signatures are generally considered suspect. >> This final clause appears to be missing some words. Consider rephrasing. >> > While there are not currently any known practical pre-image or second pre-image attacks against MD5 or SHA&nbhy;1, the fact they are no longer considered to be collision resistant implies that the security level of any signature that is created with that these hash algorithms should also be considered as suspect. > > Sounds good to me. Thanks! /a