Re: [TLS] TLS Opaque

Hugo Krawczyk <hugo@ee.technion.ac.il> Thu, 01 April 2021 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <hugokraw@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC4D3A1999 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 08:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.417
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 P3ghtcAIbX5D for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 08:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-f49.google.com (mail-ej1-f49.google.com [209.85.218.49]) (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 837503A1998 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 08:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-f49.google.com with SMTP id ce10so3599367ejb.6 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 08:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6vGRJamB4wf378U6t3GqVg33znSlqWO7XKC+WGb30u0=; b=K7rsx+awRNqWNyZKxBBAnwKBqQcRko+DN3C3F+out6ch+PWXuMFhHrNkAYTrlukBo1 ZhhF0p4BSdDWBNEV/iiNs5IJd6SxVdIfwtrMMfC/BfBpkIj5ra5J6sHBYZdWSOSRXIIw 6AHPYK8BJc+tSK52vbgsok4KWyuL7u/5ynq/C6uDAM9ev3VfAJndxtfYKxhx1MDqsW3t QT6D2MR6FDonL8K0qbzGwrfIIWBd5uX1mz41Iilc7oIki/BAYV981trWHp5KM3h+APO5 SSpQRgwf+W55d0pOH8AnfpRXYaMiZMK1bIOxCroZgyzan0F80b6KnOiJdKOgsmdW43BG m4ew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533qaOkPcVgtq9qA3GF7bat1HbtUvgDuI1dnkvPFDD7rQ8b8oJDn cdI40Hy3Qf4QMwTLTW797S2zbw46SVMgNuWmFME=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw6bUcZVXRLJwvUa0YX21/CWPEC/0e2X5dN+3qkvy6srDEWKfpp5PGuS3U4FV/0zVZZsVNiHzJjAlNFRVGbBFI=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4b0e:: with SMTP id y14mr9584971eju.393.1617292422668; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 08:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOgPGoBVgnD=s7+DTxsYibvDwe6njJJE=ioeTwxqgSAyF_gEBw@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Sz+6a0Mf8deg_r_4V833ZrCtM9oymAsV-5mA0cEhpT6mw@mail.gmail.com> <BN7PR11MB2641D0ECFF0E5C95D8DFD167C17B9@BN7PR11MB2641.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAChr6Sx2jbCB7ik6-o1UWzC423zGustxHUSFDE5dMfL5oDSxrQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6Sx2jbCB7ik6-o1UWzC423zGustxHUSFDE5dMfL5oDSxrQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hugo Krawczyk <hugo@ee.technion.ac.il>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 11:53:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CADi0yUPQfBut3S6_uV9Nq4ppYNLc78ew0kGGW+TqTkd+TwYL3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Cc: "Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)" <sfluhrer@cisco.com>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000059e4ae05beeb3cff"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/8FariBOLTShvU8r2xM6aO_Q_H4A>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS Opaque
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:53:49 -0000

Thanks Bob for pointing to the "real" ongoing specification of OPAQUE in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-opaque-03
and its careful specification of OPAQUE-3DH, including test vectors (and
sorry Scott for the typos in the other draft).
draft-irtf-cfrg-opaque is still work in process and comments on it are
welcome. It is intended as a standalone specification of OPAQUE.

In contrast, draft-sullivan-tls-opaque-01 is a very preliminary document to
show ways in which OPAQUE can be combined within and transported by TLS
1.3, e.g., using the exported authentication mechanisms from
draft-ietf-tls-exported-authenticator. It will be developed into a
document  compatible with the definition of OPAQUE in
draft-irtf-cfrg-opaque.

Hugo

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:51 AM Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry, I was thinking of the wrong draft. See:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-opaque-03#section-4.2.2
>
> and
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-opaque-03#appendix-C
>
> thanks,
> Rob
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:08 AM Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) <
> sfluhrer@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 9:39 PM Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> There is at least one question on the list that has gone unanswered for
>> some time [1].
>>
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/yCBYp10QuYPSu5zOoM3v84SAIZE/
>>
>>
>>
>> I've found most of the OPAQUE drafts are pretty confusing / incorrect /
>> or typo'd when it comes to lines like these. Describing these calculations
>> seems difficult in ASCII, so I don't fault anyone for making mistakes here.
>> The authors have also been pretty responsive in adding test vectors and
>> such.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the answer is “it’s a typo”, that’s fine – I agree that RFCs are a
>> horrid format for expressing equations.  However, it would be good if there
>> were to state what is the correct relationship here (and possibly update
>> the draft with the corrected versions)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>