Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 04 August 2011 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: woes@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: woes@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BAA321F8B1E for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.614
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.614 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8ku81o+9VNh8 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E901F21F8B1D for <woes@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.101] (50-0-66-4.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.0.66.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p74FmbmN030021 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:48:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <1312472487.3264.35.camel@dynamo>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:48:56 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F1F8D912-8437-4A6E-B34C-53C7EEAD96A1@vpnc.org>
References: <4F25253E-A870-4956-AAB1-20890B655984@vpnc.org> <4E3A9885.50600@ieca.com> <1312472487.3264.35.camel@dynamo>
To: "Paul C. Bryan" <paul.bryan@forgerock.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
Cc: woes@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition
X-BeenThere: woes@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Web Object Encryption and Signing \(woes\) BOF discussion list" <woes.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/woes>, <mailto:woes-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/woes>
List-Post: <mailto:woes@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:woes-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes>, <mailto:woes-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:48:49 -0000

On Aug 4, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Paul C. Bryan wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 09:03 -0400, Sean Turner wrote:
>> 
>> I just want to make sure that we agree now that a digital signature is a 
>> hash followed by a signature algorithm (e.g., RSA with SHA-256).  I've 
>> seen a couple of drafts that tried to say an HMAC (e.g., HMAC-SHA256) 
>> was a digital signature; one called it a symmetric key based digital 
>> signature algorithm (note this phrase didn't get through the IESG).
>> 
> 
> I don't agree.

You don't agree with his definition? Where do you see HMACs defined as "digital signatures"?

> I believe we should be able to use this useful plumbing to ensure integrity/authenticity without having to rely exclusively on public key cryptography.

That is a separate issue. Are you asking that a fifth item be added to the charter, to define HMAC'd content?

--Paul Hoffman