IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] [saag] draft-iab-crypto-alg-agility-00

Ben Laurie <ben@links.org> Mon, 07 April 2014 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <benlaurie@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 833DE1A072C; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 07:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 yWGnl2rcbt9q; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 07:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x232.google.com (mail-qc0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 750911A044C; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 07:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id i8so6426026qcq.37 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 07:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=DuEApVu0ykD3cfqzV6qn6JTomxq14bPw+VEOChzc06Y=; b=bAdVdu+4fpHGkMfyxH/wk3325AewW/Vu+N+OHWGuSL+7fDjQxyI3NKkJIJSKUoJUcS CwqnxCmMYIZ44n7Tpb84aIlAeVrQoJpkHMj3fUWEkYvTESUlM6xU8JqGN+D/mhhaVAeL 74+xWl3WtBMKrL8VVFsHID6C3S5sVShV/MWuuqnVzp9CQOwoMQl511NCLknjYG7LhWXp GwdQXxrAVKlC0rEii/OQER1u0c8o8L8vjK4X4ohtpUhlrZjsGB1zfUiP2tVbrPApbhwQ 65zOehXw1vLnuJolB8FjYHUkcpmyXQSc48aJ+RWMTQf/s/gQfhT4BSfkckFatOdeHHTV 2q4w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.147.77 with SMTP id k13mr16010750qav.64.1396881430593; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 07:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: benlaurie@gmail.com
Received: by 10.96.157.137 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 07:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C7120A04ED14@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <5999195E-9073-4649-A224-BF71BA61CBAF@vigilsec.com> <CAG5KPzzqSQ++YpQcnYesecL0GQ0+J0ieMXBrNk6txMAC58xEQQ@mail.gmail.com> <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C7120A04EBD0@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140406121529.0bd2d730@resistor.net> <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C7120A04EBD7@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <CAG5KPzxihe+k0x0njC+BANacmrrQyfU5RAY_EYcMYW2rx8DZfw@mail.gmail.com> <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C7120A04ED14@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:37:10 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: rqKQwVGdGvQgg68cu3AaF4IbQ0s
Message-ID: <CAG5KPzzzmJhcPfs0cJuS3f8Lu_Rua9dj0XWaOZ0RQ0Mwyd+egw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Laurie <ben@links.org>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/RcKVIeSS9QhLUVilP5FeRyvDISA
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 09:24:13 -0700
Cc: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>, "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Trans] [saag] draft-iab-crypto-alg-agility-00
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:37:43 -0000

On 7 April 2014 15:00, Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
> (Adding trans@ietf.org)
>
> Me:
>> CT should not be a special case exemption from the agility spec.
>
> Ben:
>> I think it should, and here's why: normally you want agility so endpoints can change their crypto in an orderly way, so as to phase out weak algorithms. In CT the endpoint is the enemy: you don't want it to be able to choose algorithms that suit it.
>
> What is the endpoint?  The  log server?  I don't understand the point.

Yes, the log server.

> And as I said, why can't you get the same effect with proper use of ALL CAPS words in the RFC?

What effect? You mean define an algorithm that the log server MUST use?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email