Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? was RE: Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition

Joe Hildebrand <joe.hildebrand@webex.com> Wed, 10 August 2011 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <Joe.Hildebrand@webex.com>
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 2683721F8AD1 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PapGmUcTkHfO for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw2.webex.com (gw2.webex.com [64.68.122.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B045121F884C for <woes@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SRV-EXSC03.webex.local ([192.168.252.197]) by gw2.webex.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:56:33 -0700
Received: from 10.21.79.26 ([10.21.79.26]) by SRV-EXSC03.webex.local ([192.168.252.200]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:56:33 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:56:32 -0600
From: Joe Hildebrand <joe.hildebrand@webex.com>
To: Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@MIT.EDU>, "woes@ietf.org" <woes@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <CA67F840.DC01%joe.hildebrand@webex.com>
Thread-Topic: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? was RE: Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition
Thread-Index: AcxWPNcHBGaoFzKlTHKeGEC10gBurwAgJQrQAAFgpisABCcNIAAmicM/
In-Reply-To: <DADD7EAD88AB484D8CCC328D40214CCD0E7504259F@EXPO10.exchange.mit.edu>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2011 14:56:33.0797 (UTC) FILETIME=[B2198350:01CC576D]
Subject: Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? was RE: 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: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:56:04 -0000

On 8/9/11 2:43 PM, "Thomas Hardjono" <hardjono@MIT.EDU> wrote:

> Its perfectly ok (and necessary for interop) for the implementers to agree
> beforehand about which cipher(s) are must implement.

I'd phrase this "agree beforehand" as the mandatory-to-implement set of
algorithms.  I read your original message as saying that you didn't think
there should be *any* MTI algorithms.  If I misread, then we're on the same
page.

> Support for multiple
> ciphers is a good thing. However, there is no need to call these out within
> the JOSE specification.

The proposal on the table is for there to be a second draft which contains
the MTI algorithms.

> Perhaps the chairs can simply do a WG consensus call to ask which
> ciphers/algorithms to implement as part of the first WG deliverables.

We'd need to write that consensus down in a document so that folks who came
along later would know what we decided.  Drafts don't *have* to be long and
complicated. :)

-- 
Joe Hildebrand