Re: [T2TRG] [irsg] draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-seccons ready to publish

Hi Stephen:

I blame the early morning coffee jitters for the misspelling your name. 
Sorry :)

On 05/22/2018 10:09 AM, Mohit Sethi wrote:
>
> Hi Stefan,
>
> My co-author, Oscar knows and understands homomorphic encryption well 
> so perhaps he can comment more. This is all the text we have on 
> homomorphic encryption in the draft (listed as one of the many options 
> of end-to-end security in presence of middleboxes):
>
>>     4.  Homomorphic encryption techniques can be used in the middlebox to
>>         perform certain operations.  However, this is limited to data
>>         processing involving arithmetic operations.  Furthermore,
>>         performance of existing libraries, for example, SEAL [SEAL 
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-seccons-15#ref-SEAL>] is
>>         still too limited and homomorphic encryption techniques are not
>>         widely applicable yet.
>
> The way I read this: homomorphic encryption exists, can only work on 
> arithmetic operations, performance is still too limited and 
> homomorphic techniques are not widely applicable yet? I don't see how 
> this text is optimistic about homomorphic crypto?
>
> --Mohit
> On 05/20/2018 01:50 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Thanks for the comprehensive and nicely objective write-up. Seems like a
>> good example for us all.
>>
>> On 20/05/18 02:17, Jim Schaad wrote:
>>> Stephen Farrell did a review of the document back in February.  He made many
>>> suggestions to the document which were mainly adopted, but still expressed
>>> some skepticism about the final worth of the document.   What I read as his
>>> major reservations were 1) A worry that this document was expressed as a
>>> sales pitch and as such might have some limited long term applicability,  2)
>>> A worry that some of the references to current work (SUIT and OSCORE being
>>> two) in a long term document may not be useful, and 3) Some of the document
>>> might be better if it were re-organized.
>> That's a bit more negative than I ended up. Point 3 still stands yes,
>> but definitely ought not be any barrier to publication. IIRC, my main
>> outstanding issue was the unfounded optimism wrt homomorphic crypto.
>> Note that I'm not asking that the document not be published on that
>> basis. (I do predict that everyone will regret the current text on
>> that down the road though;-)
>>
>> S.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> T2TRG mailing list
>> T2TRG@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/t2trg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> T2TRG mailing list
> T2TRG@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/t2trg