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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 04 August 2011 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 D001A21F85E3 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 AEJ7tpD1FtON for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F3B21F85BB for <woes@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyg8 with SMTP id 8so599521wyg.31 for <woes@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 08:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.172.73 with SMTP id k9mr894667wbz.30.1312473172152; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 08:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.63.11 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F1F8D912-8437-4A6E-B34C-53C7EEAD96A1@vpnc.org>
References: <4F25253E-A870-4956-AAB1-20890B655984@vpnc.org> <4E3A9885.50600@ieca.com> <1312472487.3264.35.camel@dynamo> <F1F8D912-8437-4A6E-B34C-53C7EEAD96A1@vpnc.org>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:52:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNTyoXco921v8zG=0owfTYUwgxYm4FDMDhv2uuOrf_tAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 15:52:39 -0000

IMO, symmetric integrity protection is a useful primitive, and it's
already part of the
JWT spec. I think all that's required here in the charter is to
wordsmith it to separate
out symmetric from asymmetric integrity algorithms,

-Ekr


On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> woes mailing list
> woes@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
>