From nobody Tue May 1 12:08:12 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC0212EA42 for ; Tue, 1 May 2018 12:08:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 av6RAllAfVjD for ; Tue, 1 May 2018 12:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2521D12EA24 for ; Tue, 1 May 2018 12:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE87C300393B; Tue, 1 May 2018 19:08:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ovpn-116-166.phx2.redhat.com (ovpn-116-166.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.166]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17ECD9CCD; Tue, 1 May 2018 19:08:07 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1525201687.32101.39.camel@redhat.com> From: Simo Sorce To: Eric Rescorla , Hubert Kario Cc: curdle Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 15:08:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <1555475.KUsr8aTfev@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <3446969.zDdGGYQIsg@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.48]); Tue, 01 May 2018 19:08:08 +0000 (UTC) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Curdle] AD Review of draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2-05 X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 19:08:12 -0000 On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 12:55 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Hubert Kario wrote: > > > I think you're misunderstanding me. My point is that there are already > > > documents > > > which describe how to generate the private and public keys for EC. You > > > should > > > be referring to them, not recapitulating their contents here. > > > > proposed in https://github.com/simo5/ietf/pull/24 > > > I will review this. Hi Eric, did you have time to look at this ? Or do you prefer to get a new draft with these changes ? Simo. From nobody Tue May 8 16:46:14 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietf.org Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A52DA12D7F1; Tue, 8 May 2018 16:46:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: curdle@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.80.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <152582316762.2629.11723388722077902980@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 08 May 2018 16:46:07 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Curdle] I-D Action: draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-10.txt X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 May 2018 23:46:08 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the CURves, Deprecating and a Little more Encryption WG of the IETF. Title : Algorithm Identifiers for Ed25519, Ed448, X25519 and X448 for use in the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Authors : Simon Josefsson Jim Schaad Filename : draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-10.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2018-05-08 Abstract: This document specifies algorithm identifiers and ASN.1 encoding formats for Elliptic Curve constructs using the curve25519 and curve448 curves. The signature algorithms covered are Ed25519 and Ed448. The key agreement algorithm covered are X25519 and X448. The encoding for Public Key, Private Key and EdDSA digital signature structures is provided. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-pkix/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-10 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-10 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-10 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue May 8 16:49:05 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6CD012D7F2 for ; Tue, 8 May 2018 16:49:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 IBIZUVR48qzW for ; Tue, 8 May 2018 16:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A5A112D7F1 for ; Tue, 8 May 2018 16:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Tue, 8 May 2018 16:46:23 -0700 From: Jim Schaad To: References: <152582316787.2629.11716062597252518164.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <152582316787.2629.11716062597252518164.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 16:48:54 -0700 Message-ID: <009a01d3e727$20e69700$62b3c500$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQHjf3qUQLwEZBOf0XFfzEF2MpYQW6QHTzSA Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170] Archived-At: Subject: [Curdle] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-10.txt X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 May 2018 23:49:05 -0000 This clears up the last remaining question on this document. -----Original Message----- From: internet-drafts@ietf.org =20 Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 4:46 PM To: Jim Schaad ; Simon Josefsson = Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-10.txt A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-10.txt has been = successfully submitted by Jim Schaad and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ietf-curdle-pkix Revision: 10 Title: Algorithm Identifiers for Ed25519, Ed448, X25519 and X448 for = use in the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Document date: 2018-05-08 Group: curdle Pages: 18 URL: = https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-10.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-pkix/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-10 Htmlized: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-curdle-pkix Diff: = https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-curdle-pkix-10 Abstract: This document specifies algorithm identifiers and ASN.1 encoding formats for Elliptic Curve constructs using the curve25519 and curve448 curves. The signature algorithms covered are Ed25519 and Ed448. The key agreement algorithm covered are X25519 and X448. The encoding for Public Key, Private Key and EdDSA digital signature structures is provided. = =20 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at = tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat From nobody Wed May 9 06:23:04 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietf.org Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09CC21241FC; Wed, 9 May 2018 06:23:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.80.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Cc: The IESG , ekr@rtfm.com, Daniel Migault , curdle-chairs@ietf.org, curdle@ietf.org, daniel.migault@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-curdle-pkix@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <152587218203.3989.566393408182604594.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 06:23:02 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Curdle] Protocol Action: 'Algorithm Identifiers for Ed25519, Ed448, X25519 and X448 for use in the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-10.txt) X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 13:23:02 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Algorithm Identifiers for Ed25519, Ed448, X25519 and X448 for use in the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure' (draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-10.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the CURves, Deprecating and a Little more Encryption Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Benjamin Kaduk and Eric Rescorla. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-pkix/ Technical Summary This document specifies algorithm identifiers and ASN.1 encoding formats for Elliptic Curve constructs using the Curve25519 and Curve448 curves. The signature algorithms covered are Ed25519, Ed448. The key agreement algorithm covered are X25519 and X448. The Encoding for Public Key, Private Key and EdDSA digital signature structures is provided. Working Group Summary Main discussions that happened regarding the draft were: - the use of a context or not. The current agreement was not to use any specific context as this would lead to encourage people to use the same key for different usages. The same discussion appears in IPsec, with the DNSKEY. - Names and designation for IOD format. We met in the IETF in Berlin (Benjamin, Jim, Russ as well as Rich and Daniel) and the next version reflected the discussion, and were adopted by the WG. - Use of prehash or pure variant was raised in version 03 that mentioned "CAs MUST NOT use the pre-hash versions". The main argument for enabling the prehash variant was to be able to sign large amount of data such as CRLs. However this can be addressed by combining CRL distribution points, combined with segmenting the certificates. For the care of simplicity, the consensus was that a single variant should be considered only and the choice was to follow the FCRG recommendations and chose the pure variant. As a result the draft has removed any mention of the purehash variant and stated clearly that only the pure variant is addressed by the draft. - OID identifier parameter MUST be absent and a parameter set to NULL MUST NOT be accepted. Java implementation cannot be currently compatible with this. However, the working group consensus was to have a straight enforcement of the update specification of AlgorithmIdentifier. This is clearly mentioned in the draft so implementation can understand the motivation as well as becoming compliant with the updated spec. """ When the 1997 syntax for AlgorithmIdentifier was initially defined, it omitted the OPTIONAL key word. The optionality of the parameters field was later recovered via a defect report, but by then many people thought that the field was mandatory. For this reason, a small number of implementations may still require the field to be present. """ Document Quality There are several partial implementations and extensive review was received. Personnel Daniel Migault is the document shepherd. Eric Rescorla is the AD. From nobody Wed May 9 19:44:54 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88DD212D873 for ; Wed, 9 May 2018 19:44:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 1j3L3us4qN_j for ; Wed, 9 May 2018 19:44:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1ED012D86F for ; Wed, 9 May 2018 19:44:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 2E353B80833; Wed, 9 May 2018 19:44:50 -0700 (PDT) To: housley@vigilsec.com, kaduk@mit.edu, ekr@rtfm.com, daniel.migault@ericsson.com, rsalz@akamai.com X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Cc: pleasestand@live.com, curdle@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20180510024450.2E353B80833@rfc-editor.org> Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 19:44:50 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [Curdle] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8103 (5353) X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 02:44:52 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8103, "Using ChaCha20-Poly1305 Authenticated Encryption in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5353 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Kevin Israel Section: 6 Original Text ------------- The amount of encrypted data possible in a single invocation of AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 is 2^32-1 blocks of 64 octets each, because of the size of the block counter field in the ChaCha20 block function. This gives a total of 247,877,906,880 octets, which is likely to be sufficient to handle the size of any CMS content type. Note that the ciphertext length field in the authentication buffer will accommodate 2^64 octets, which is much larger than necessary. Corrected Text -------------- The amount of encrypted data possible in a single invocation of AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 is 2^32-1 blocks of 64 octets each, because of the size of the block counter field in the ChaCha20 block function. This gives a total of 274,877,906,880 octets, which is likely to be sufficient to handle the size of any CMS content type. Note that the ciphertext length field in the authentication buffer will accommodate 2^64 octets, which is much larger than necessary. Notes ----- The calculated total number of octets that can be encrypted in a single invocation is incorrect. See RFC Errata, Erratum ID 4858, RFC 7539. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC8103 (draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-06) -------------------------------------- Title : Using ChaCha20-Poly1305 Authenticated Encryption in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Publication Date : February 2017 Author(s) : R. Housley Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : CURves, Deprecating and a Little more Encryption Area : Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Thu May 10 09:36:26 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D9112D886 for ; Thu, 10 May 2018 09:36:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 HVrj2wToAohO for ; Thu, 10 May 2018 09:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83F8012D881 for ; Thu, 10 May 2018 09:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65D27300A03 for ; Thu, 10 May 2018 12:36:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 1Rx3ape1OQ4t for ; Thu, 10 May 2018 12:36:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [5.5.33.83] (vpn.snozzages.com [204.42.252.17]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 65AAA30044B; Thu, 10 May 2018 12:36:17 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <20180510024450.2E353B80833@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 12:36:17 -0400 Cc: Daniel Migault , Rich Salz , pleasestand@live.com, curdle Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20180510024450.2E353B80833@rfc-editor.org> To: Eric Rescorla , Ben Kaduk X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Curdle] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8103 (5353) X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:36:24 -0000 It probably make sense for this to be approved. It has an impact on the = P_MAX size. Russ > On May 9, 2018, at 10:44 PM, RFC Errata System = wrote: >=20 > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8103, > "Using ChaCha20-Poly1305 Authenticated Encryption in the Cryptographic = Message Syntax (CMS)". >=20 > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5353 >=20 > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Kevin Israel >=20 > Section: 6 >=20 > Original Text > ------------- > The amount of encrypted data possible in a single invocation of > AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 is 2^32-1 blocks of 64 octets each, because = of > the size of the block counter field in the ChaCha20 block function. > This gives a total of 247,877,906,880 octets, which is likely to be > sufficient to handle the size of any CMS content type. Note that = the > ciphertext length field in the authentication buffer will = accommodate > 2^64 octets, which is much larger than necessary. >=20 > Corrected Text > -------------- > The amount of encrypted data possible in a single invocation of > AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 is 2^32-1 blocks of 64 octets each, because = of > the size of the block counter field in the ChaCha20 block function. > This gives a total of 274,877,906,880 octets, which is likely to be > sufficient to handle the size of any CMS content type. Note that = the > ciphertext length field in the authentication buffer will = accommodate > 2^64 octets, which is much larger than necessary. >=20 > Notes > ----- > The calculated total number of octets that can be encrypted in a = single invocation is incorrect. See RFC Errata, Erratum ID 4858, RFC = 7539. >=20 > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party =20 > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------- > RFC8103 (draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-06) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Using ChaCha20-Poly1305 Authenticated Encryption = in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) > Publication Date : February 2017 > Author(s) : R. Housley > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : CURves, Deprecating and a Little more Encryption > Area : Security > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Curdle mailing list > Curdle@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/curdle From nobody Fri May 11 10:40:44 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9159D126DFB; Fri, 11 May 2018 10:40:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 88ad65XegGzk; Fri, 11 May 2018 10:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D055E126C2F; Fri, 11 May 2018 10:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id B5B73B828C6; Fri, 11 May 2018 10:40:38 -0700 (PDT) To: pleasestand@live.com, housley@vigilsec.com X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Cc: kaduk@mit.edu, iesg@ietf.org, curdle@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20180511174038.B5B73B828C6@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 10:40:38 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [Curdle] [Errata Verified] RFC8103 (5353) X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 17:40:43 -0000 The following errata report has been verified for RFC8103, "Using ChaCha20-Poly1305 Authenticated Encryption in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5353 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Technical Reported by: Kevin Israel Date Reported: 2018-05-10 Verified by: Benjamin Kaduk (IESG) Section: 6 Original Text ------------- The amount of encrypted data possible in a single invocation of AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 is 2^32-1 blocks of 64 octets each, because of the size of the block counter field in the ChaCha20 block function. This gives a total of 247,877,906,880 octets, which is likely to be sufficient to handle the size of any CMS content type. Note that the ciphertext length field in the authentication buffer will accommodate 2^64 octets, which is much larger than necessary. Corrected Text -------------- The amount of encrypted data possible in a single invocation of AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 is 2^32-1 blocks of 64 octets each, because of the size of the block counter field in the ChaCha20 block function. This gives a total of 274,877,906,880 octets, which is likely to be sufficient to handle the size of any CMS content type. Note that the ciphertext length field in the authentication buffer will accommodate 2^64 octets, which is much larger than necessary. Notes ----- The calculated total number of octets that can be encrypted in a single invocation is incorrect. See RFC Errata, Erratum ID 4858, RFC 7539. -------------------------------------- RFC8103 (draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly1305-06) -------------------------------------- Title : Using ChaCha20-Poly1305 Authenticated Encryption in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Publication Date : February 2017 Author(s) : R. Housley Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : CURves, Deprecating and a Little more Encryption Area : Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Tue May 15 10:00:21 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD1CC126CC4 for ; Tue, 15 May 2018 10:00:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 Mi3ivhEWyn-P for ; Tue, 15 May 2018 10:00:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22e.google.com (mail-lf0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22e]) (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 1759B1243F3 for ; Tue, 15 May 2018 10:00:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id z142-v6so1302016lff.5 for ; Tue, 15 May 2018 10:00:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ZQT7dhR8vXzHGrWVyudxlfziYVmqeBFJBTIAK8208vU=; b=DVS3LLkip3PsAXzVFHonSefrE6iXKOKyUbrqW6w+kNRn1NtZEc7z6HDk1HcL64TfyQ JvLHVJ0dPe4opd3NTcgHFTBwPLG4cwOHl9RA/ME9pzvUELQsTa0omDMeEMpwRsILIsdU Xgw7Y9I+bLaYHn0acWNrj3mlujQoEljpZJEWbFKZLAoeJcuYFQpGynGxe0n7boXOLjrt C+Y99DzR+5bL1RaQxZU8WBziLDVY2aRFp1QDBNfQ7MklNR72oXc2KdmyGcdlOTv9Uvvc 9VLpyetGdIljlOKqG83vcV/o8vDnY/0b0OkTH/QJzT/U5WxcxWimkSMyQcjXCJdEggBk c2DA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject :to; bh=ZQT7dhR8vXzHGrWVyudxlfziYVmqeBFJBTIAK8208vU=; b=HXZKHresHi5/GxkNPDoYjzwdSvsy/NsSmjhG6skmBOk9yZhcrvHfZ6Uvcm3z6y+MgP rdESXziTTGGRDhljWlGBZG7yAHRoo4UI3sMv8amvtDXiw8bW+0UTak5jM0aehx54k6yQ JrNt/bf8DWAVF6LFvV9NBJs+RJ3EyLzuRhlWaccLPygsUi56swep/kOvnF1pycTvlBbg ++iJo6qr0L/Piv1kYNIKIr7rpWt9CRKV/diSeobaSUt7ysr3QO2gd/T3i5enCFSS5Yj5 fFCfO14j6cuPdGygr228yJHccCVrYMsswm2ownJAXAEB8PWnEb74LvDaUrRVatax7NHF 7hBw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwdNFvVn51qKZxHGlUhr9oKQ7N3gDVgvfnez2c9sJmwGBX5q0B5K BhRsEDheH8wId19zN93To2f9Qa6P8W5qjitpuVHy3w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZrlG+ecq5GOCunEbc6w1Tms0v5gGhOjoGwDwmmeNoVlouD90Ej0SQBoW+i9A2ZaMshgAdvJ/btKLeygJM3SHso= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9218:: with SMTP id k24-v6mr2469050ljg.70.1526403610761; Tue, 15 May 2018 10:00:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mglt.ietf@gmail.com Received: by 10.46.158.88 with HTTP; Tue, 15 May 2018 10:00:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Daniel Migault Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 13:00:10 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: _3DJVLmb2cPR5GDEpNy219aMO6g Message-ID: To: curdle Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000000e1e7056c418987" Archived-At: Subject: [Curdle] draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-06 review X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 17:00:20 -0000 --00000000000000e1e7056c418987 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, Please find my review for draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-06 [1]. I have also proposed text, so please comment the review in the mail. I am willing to start a WGLC as soon as the draft is being updated. Yours, Daniel [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-06 RFC-Editor: I personally find the ton of the sentence a bit aggressive, thus I would remove it or just leave the RFC reference. """ Non-ASCII characters are allowed in RFCs as per RFC 7997. """ I see deprecation and move to historic status as very similar to draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05 and I assume that is correct. Abstract: The sentence below is a bit hard to parse. "" and formally obsoletes and moves to Historic RFC 4345. "" I would propose instead: """ This document deprecates RC4 in Secure Shell (SSH). Therefore, this document updates RFC 4253, and moves to Historic RFC 4345. """ 1. Introduction """ RC4 is broken"" """ Although English is not my main language, it sounds a bit abrupt to me and it might be preferred to sue something around the lines of draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05: RC4 encryption is steadily weakening in cryptographic strength, and the deprecation process should be begun for their use in SSH. It seems to me that sections 1, 2 3 could be merged. I would propose the following text. I am providing comments in . 1. Introduction The usage of RC4 suites ( also designated as arcfour ) for SSH are specified in RFC 4253 and RFC 4345. RFC 4253 specifies the allocation of the "arcfour" cipher for SSH. RFC 4345 specifies and allocates the the "arcfour-128" and "arcfour-256" ciphers for SSH. RC4 encryption is steadily weakening in cryptographic strength [RFC7457][draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05], and the deprecation process should be begun for their use in Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC4253]. Accordingly, RFC 4253 is updated to note the deprecation of the RC4 ciphers and RFC 4345 is moved to Historic as all ciphers it specifies MUST NOT be used. I believe that this document is very closed to [draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05] and as such a reference to it should be mentioned. 2. Requirements Notation The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119, RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 3. Updates to RFC 4253 RFC 4253 is updated to prohibit arcfour's use in SSH. """ The last sentence of the paragraph on RC4 (called "arcfour" in [RFC4253]) in Section 6.3 of [RFC4253] """ I believe that it might be clearer to quote the text as it is not easy to locate it. I would propose the text below. RFC 4253 allocate the "arcfour" cipher in Section 6.3 by defining a list of defined ciphers where the "arcfour" cipher appears as optional as mentioned below: """ arcfour OPTIONAL the ARCFOUR stream cipher with a 128-bit key """ The current document updates the status of the "arcfour" ciphers in the list of RFC 4253 Section 6.3 by moving it from OPTIONAL to MUST NOT. """ arcfour MUST NOT the ARCFOUR stream cipher with a 128-bit key """ RFC 4253 defines the "arcfour" ciphers with the text mentioned below: """ The "arcfour" cipher is the Arcfour stream cipher with 128-bit keys. The Arcfour cipher is believed to be compatible with the RC4 cipher [SCHNEIER]. Arcfour (and RC4) has problems with weak keys, and should be used with caution. """ The current document updates RFC 4253 Section 6.3 by replacing th etext above with the following text: """ The "arcfour" cipher is the Arcfour stream cipher with 128-bit keys. The Arcfour cipher is believed to be compatible with the RC4 cipher [SCHNEIER]. Arcfour (and RC4) is steadily weakening in cryptographic strength [RFC7457][draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05], and MUST NOT be used. """ 4. IANA Considerations There is a reference to 3DES i think should be removed. In addition, IANA cannot be required to update RFCs. IANA is assigned to update the SSH registries. With [IANA] being an informational reference to https://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters/ssh-parameters.xhtml, I would propose the following text : The IANA is requested to update the Encryption Algorithm Name Registry of the Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Parameters [IANA]. The Registration procedure is IETF Review which is achieved by this document. The registry should be updated as follows: Encryption Algorithm Name Reference Note arcfour [RFC-TBD] arcfour128 [RFC-TBD] arcfour256 [RFC-TBD] Where TBD is the RFC number assigned to the document. --00000000000000e1e7056c418987 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

Please find my revi= ew for draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-06 [1]. I have also proposed text,= so please comment the review in the mail. I am willing to start a WGLC as = soon as the draft is being updated.

Yours,
Daniel



<= /div>

RFC-Editor:

I personally find the ton of t= he sentence a bit aggressive, thus I would remove it or just leave the RFC = reference.

"""
Non-ASCII characters are allowed i= n RFCs as per RFC 7997.
"""

I see deprecation and = move to historic status as very similar to draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-di= e-die-die-05 and I assume that is correct.

Abstract:

The sen= tence below is a bit hard to parse.
""
and formally obsole= tes and moves to
=C2=A0=C2=A0 Historic RFC 4345.
""
I would propose instead:

"""
This document= deprecates RC4 in Secure Shell (SSH).=C2=A0 Therefore, this
=C2=A0=C2= =A0 document updates RFC 4253, and moves to Historic RFC 4345.
"&qu= ot;"

1. Introduction


"""
RC4 is br= oken""
"""

Although English is not my ma= in language, it sounds a bit abrupt to me and it might be preferred to sue = something around the lines of draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05:=

RC4 encryption is steadily weakening in cryptographic strength, and= the deprecation process should be begun for their use in SSH.


I= t seems to me that sections 1, 2 3 could be merged. I would propose the fol= lowing text. I am providing comments in <mglt></mglt>.

<= br>
1. Introduction


The usage of RC4 suites ( also designated= as arcfour ) for SSH are specified in RFC 4253 and RFC 4345. RFC 4253 spec= ifies the allocation of the "arcfour" cipher for SSH. RFC 4345 sp= ecifies and allocates the the "arcfour-128" and "arcfour-256= " ciphers for SSH.

RC4 encryption is steadily weakening in cry= ptographic strength [RFC7457][draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05]= , and the deprecation process should be begun for their use in Secure Shell= (SSH) [RFC4253]. Accordingly, RFC 4253 is updated to note the deprecation = of the RC4 ciphers and RFC 4345 is moved to Historic as all ciphers it spec= ifies MUST NOT be used.=C2=A0

<mglt>I believe that this docum= ent is very closed to [draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05] and as= such a reference to it should be mentioned. </mglt>


2.=C2= =A0 Requirements Notation

=C2=A0The key words "MUST", &quo= t;MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT&= quot;, "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",= "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be inter= preted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119, RFC8174] when, and only when, they = appear in all capitals, as shown here.

3. Updates to RFC 4253
RFC 4253 is updated to prohibit arcfour's use in SSH.

<mglt&= gt;
"""
The last sentence of the paragraph on RC4 (ca= lled "arcfour"
=C2=A0=C2=A0 in [RFC4253]) in Section 6.3 of [R= FC4253]
"""

I believe that it might be clearer to= quote the text as it is not easy to locate it. I would propose the text be= low. </mglt>

RFC 4253 allocate the "arcfour" cipher = in Section 6.3 by defining a list of defined ciphers where the "arcfou= r" cipher appears as optional as mentioned below:

""= "
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 arcfour=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 OPTIONAL=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 the ARCFOUR stream cipher
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 with a 128-bit= key
"""

The current document updates the status o= f the "arcfour" ciphers in the list of RFC 4253 Section 6.3 by mo= ving it from OPTIONAL to MUST NOT.

"""
=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 arcfour=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0 MUST NOT=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 th= e ARCFOUR stream cipher
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 with a 128-bit key
"&quo= t;"

RFC 4253 defines the "arcfour" ciphers with the t= ext mentioned below:
"""
=C2=A0=C2=A0 The "arcfo= ur" cipher is the Arcfour stream cipher with 128-bit keys.
=C2=A0= =C2=A0 The Arcfour cipher is believed to be compatible with the RC4 cipher<= br>=C2=A0=C2=A0 [SCHNEIER].=C2=A0 Arcfour (and RC4) has problems with weak = keys, and
=C2=A0=C2=A0 should be used with caution.
"""= ;=C2=A0=C2=A0

The current document updates RFC 4253 Section 6.3 by = replacing th etext above with the following text:

"""=
=C2=A0=C2=A0 The "arcfour" cipher is the Arcfour stream ciphe= r with 128-bit keys.
=C2=A0=C2=A0 The Arcfour cipher is believed to be c= ompatible with the RC4 cipher
=C2=A0=C2=A0 [SCHNEIER].=C2=A0 Arcfour (an= d RC4) is steadily weakening in cryptographic strength [RFC7457][draft-ietf= -curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05], and
=C2=A0=C2=A0 MUST NOT be used.<= br>"""

4. IANA Considerations

<mglt>The= re is a reference to 3DES i think should be removed. In addition, IANA cann= ot be required to update RFCs. IANA is assigned to update the SSH registrie= s. With [IANA] being an informational reference to https://www.iana.o= rg/assignments/ssh-parameters/ssh-parameters.xhtml,=C2=A0 I would propo= se the following text :</mglt>

The IANA is requested to update= the Encryption Algorithm Name=C2=A0 Registry of the Secure Shell (SSH) Pro= tocol Parameters [IANA]. The Registration procedure is IETF Review which is= achieved by this document. The registry should be updated as follows:
<= br>Encryption Algorithm Name =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0Reference =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2= =A0Note
arcfour =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 [RFC-= TBD] =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0
arcfour128 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= [RFC-TBD] =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0
arcfour256 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0 [RFC-TBD] =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0


Where TBD is the RFC number= assigned to the document.
=C2=A0


--00000000000000e1e7056c418987-- From nobody Wed May 16 10:39:52 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C7C812D96D for ; Wed, 16 May 2018 10:39:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.71 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com 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 ZjDqyv_eSjar for ; Wed, 16 May 2018 10:39:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 743C01201F2 for ; Wed, 16 May 2018 10:39:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0122332.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w4GHb1oV018937 for ; Wed, 16 May 2018 18:39:42 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=RVnQf+Klh6AUPYMzs2MZtkUOcpuxyBY9nZCe0OkbXdw=; b=Tbnmbxajm7x/EDCuufhclSqVdvmN6QPpS8BNBEArv1/3FoUmgeEVKM8v4M7dO5WVQ7be qc755bwY9OIMFrH++WtMtQBVXAwvHlqTAEgTSXZlTlF1PcZN7Vh57d2n9RFvSrDXqWr6 tbieaSzLZ8rgcm6kZLhzsfGsb/wDuUEaYx4RqgDhpQAQtfIKQOrgmDy6uhVO2YieonCL fu67YI1wkUdb0EJ/O8VoNsxKk65kp5H7hDjevoL00VGoyB8QHlc3n46pYohWNqABaZyG oSqo/c2BhNhdP7gX9sFyiEoNOaDvi7JSnZEOXLLrPo30Bzl+cgi1Mm3s63WUEW1qjqe7 Og== Received: from prod-mail-ppoint1 (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [184.51.33.18]) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2j0gkfha4a-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 16 May 2018 18:39:42 +0100 Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id w4GHah90005914 for ; Wed, 16 May 2018 13:39:40 -0400 Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.33]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2hwumbk2mw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 16 May 2018 13:39:40 -0400 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB5.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.105) by usma1ex-dag3mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.58) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1365.1; Wed, 16 May 2018 13:39:28 -0400 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1365.1; Wed, 16 May 2018 13:39:28 -0400 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1365.000; Wed, 16 May 2018 13:39:28 -0400 From: "Salz, Rich" To: "curdle@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Anyone have a compelling reason to meet in Montreal? Thread-Index: AQHT7TzWN3qUjWV9/kC7uKvyFJWgsA== Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 17:39:27 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.c.0.180410 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [172.19.32.113] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F57059965A7345978F0A68D2F515C1A0akamaicom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-05-16_09:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=407 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1805160174 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-05-16_09:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=337 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1805160174 Archived-At: Subject: [Curdle] Anyone have a compelling reason to meet in Montreal? X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 17:39:50 -0000 --_000_F57059965A7345978F0A68D2F515C1A0akamaicom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SSBjYW7igJl0IHRoaW5rIG9mIG9uZS4gOikNCg0K --_000_F57059965A7345978F0A68D2F515C1A0akamaicom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6bz0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6b2ZmaWNlIiB4 bWxuczp3PSJ1cm46c2NoZW1hcy1taWNyb3NvZnQtY29tOm9mZmljZTp3b3JkIiB4bWxuczptPSJo dHRwOi8vc2NoZW1hcy5taWNyb3NvZnQuY29tL29mZmljZS8yMDA0LzEyL29tbWwiIHhtbG5zPSJo dHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy9UUi9SRUMtaHRtbDQwIj4NCjxoZWFkPg0KPG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVp dj0iQ29udGVudC1UeXBlIiBjb250ZW50PSJ0ZXh0L2h0bWw7IGNoYXJzZXQ9dXRmLTgiPg0KPG1l dGEgbmFtZT0iR2VuZXJhdG9yIiBjb250ZW50PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAxNSAoZmlsdGVyZWQg bWVkaXVtKSI+DQo8c3R5bGU+PCEtLQ0KLyogRm9udCBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KQGZvbnQtZmFj ZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FtYnJpYSBNYXRoIjsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDQgNSAzIDUgNCA2 IDMgMiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToy IDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQovKiBTdHlsZSBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3Jt YWwsIGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXttYXJnaW46MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1i b3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJp IixzYW5zLXNlcmlmO30NCmE6bGluaywgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmsNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXBy aW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOiMwNTYzQzE7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9 DQphOnZpc2l0ZWQsIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rRm9sbG93ZWQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9y aXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOiM5NTRGNzI7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQpz cGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUxNw0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpwZXJzb25hbC1jb21wb3NlOw0KCWZv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIixzYW5zLXNlcmlmOw0KCWNvbG9yOndpbmRvd3RleHQ7fQ0KLk1z b0NocERlZmF1bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9ubHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IkNhbGlicmkiLHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7fQ0KQHBhZ2UgV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3NpemU6OC41aW4g MTEuMGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbjoxLjBpbiAxLjBpbiAxLjBpbiAxLjBpbjt9DQpkaXYuV29yZFNlY3Rp b24xDQoJe3BhZ2U6V29yZFNlY3Rpb24xO30NCi0tPjwvc3R5bGU+DQo8L2hlYWQ+DQo8Ym9keSBs YW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgbGluaz0iIzA1NjNDMSIgdmxpbms9IiM5NTRGNzIiPg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0i V29yZFNlY3Rpb24xIj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNp emU6MTEuMHB0Ij5JIGNhbuKAmXQgdGhpbmsgb2Ygb25lLiA6KTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwv cD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0Ij48 bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvYm9keT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCg== --_000_F57059965A7345978F0A68D2F515C1A0akamaicom_-- From nobody Wed May 16 12:36:10 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietf.org Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FBD6124205; Wed, 16 May 2018 12:36:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Meeting Session Request Tool To: Cc: rsalz@akamai.com, curdle@ietf.org, curdle-chairs@ietf.org, ekr@rtfm.com X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.80.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <152649936798.30977.7891213234758515885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 12:36:07 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Curdle] curdle - Not having a session at IETF 102 X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 19:36:08 -0000 Rich Salz, a chair of the curdle working group, indicated that the curdle working group does not plan to hold a session at IETF 102. This message was generated and sent by the IETF Meeting Session Request Tool. From nobody Fri May 18 00:58:25 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietf.org Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7885127444; Fri, 18 May 2018 00:58:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die@ietf.org, Daniel Migault , curdle-chairs@ietf.org, daniel.migault@ericsson.com, curdle@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.80.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <152663030381.1525.10697183196528418599.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 00:58:23 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Curdle] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft?= =?utf-8?q?-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?= X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 07:58:24 -0000 Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry, for the late response! From nobody Fri May 18 14:10:31 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D2512E049 for ; Fri, 18 May 2018 14:10:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.609 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 lhLBavcfpF28 for ; Fri, 18 May 2018 14:10:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x235.google.com (mail-oi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::235]) (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 8941F12DA0D for ; Fri, 18 May 2018 14:10:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x235.google.com with SMTP id p62-v6so8297860oie.10 for ; Fri, 18 May 2018 14:10:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=aU39SzETLzhTif6gE3BIa+O56EKmr9/mHKmJ4FRM9gw=; b=0ye3f1NhqchivHWviv2rsHulIc0YeCz68vbNII+BBio+Mlf07GeYfubGzvFLVQEDrZ 9kQMUeZKxOKl667VUrm0U7YB9E6F8DJUqIxlIrXcY6KxhBrDgUbRBGl5U7gt7tg3SlaK Zqa72vj0KEHQFDxohj6+rS8hbomcSUx39UOwC+wUSUhgfdKWdmRoHiLxfX+8tVy45FP2 c8DAzKnHTovd+f8n+BcSU3eh9kkV2ew5KQDJx7P6wGNiZ9rbG6cW5LdOsezdlxSPaYxm MMoGuR+H65cA6yI4StINGwTtutIP0ai3SpgmvodGXtsFXTIz0dGBHpPimazCPcpGjzeN NVDg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aU39SzETLzhTif6gE3BIa+O56EKmr9/mHKmJ4FRM9gw=; b=gLoCjyxZ/KoEQlK2siUsmnP2KXW2Kg2g5HN3oM1FwPzGfCxCiAA55yXL8XYCSW666F CYOhTKajt/+C3rNjnOxRKLgmOEtKHzDjNqe7PG/MSAZX30j/2otnl8Hb976A+t87wAMK 6UnXXjGqQz1duj4acu3q3XqqVe1MrogWM9YGZu4LYEsQhvkYeJgbXtmKjhK3eX6bAQ5K kl+HzX+J7ufW7petB84CPt0Nr3CTsmMELfHwO90e1eUie2l1uqCh6J95+uydRXXbRtIV 6QcIFEBuCkokge1JZvDoZoPxYTBND5dwsAo/uyWOwPNL47uwdYToqVuliCZwV0m0qPDW jCmg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwebpZbr5Gh3qMGLXtGr/99jV/JFXHIBOMECi5iGcUac6PuBtxEY cGyu9peMidLylWZubTOKN4/tXmwMNM5XVTCjXB8wUg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZolSGxSAP6tFy0P/n635MdlIkhdpB0BTkcscpupso5oE7bNauD26MzRFiltArcWUjcQi0W04gfxS3sAfmBDceo= X-Received: by 2002:aca:d10:: with SMTP id 16-v6mr6641411oin.108.1526677826880; Fri, 18 May 2018 14:10:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.201.118.130 with HTTP; Fri, 18 May 2018 14:09:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1822880.CWREsZFPS8@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> References: <3446969.zDdGGYQIsg@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <1822880.CWREsZFPS8@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 14:09:46 -0700 Message-ID: To: Hubert Kario Cc: Simo Sorce , curdle Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008edfec056c81618c" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Curdle] AD Review of draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2-05 X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 21:10:30 -0000 --0000000000008edfec056c81618c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:46 AM, Hubert Kario wrote: > On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 21:55:21 CEST Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Hubert Kario > wrote: > > > On Friday, 13 April 2018 15:41:37 CEST Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Hubert Kario > > > > > > > > > > > This section defers to [RFC7546] as the source of > information > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > GSS- > > > > > > > > > > > > API context establishment operations, Section 3 being the > > > > > > > most > > > > > > > relevant. All Security Considerations described in > [RFC7546] > > > > > > > > > > apply > > > > > > > > > > > > here too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Client: > > > > > > This section should be refactored to put all the EC mechanics > (which > > > > > > are symmetrical) in one place. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think I understand what changes you'd like to see > > > > > > > > > > both FFDH and ECDH are symmetrical... both client and server need > to > > > > > perform > > > > > the same operations... > > > > > > > > Yes, That's why it's confusing to describe their operations in order > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > than > > > > the behavior that a DH peer does and then just the points where they > are > > > > inserted in the protocol. Compare, for instance, the TLS 1.3 > > > > > > specification, > > > > > > > where both KeyShare (https://tools.ietf.org/html/d > > > > raft-ietf-tls-tls13-28#page-53) and > > > > the DH computations (https://tools.ietf.org/html/d > > > > raft-ietf-tls-tls13-28#section-7.4) are > > > > described in an endpoint agnostic manner. DH is inherently > symmetrical. > > > > > > the actions performed in context of GSSAPI-infused key exchange aren't > > > > Neither are they in TLS, but we managed to put the DH part in one place. > > That's not true: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13-28#section-7.4 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13-28#section-4.2.8.1 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13-28#section-4.2.8.2 My point was that they're not separated between Client and Server, > > RFC 7748 says that the verification is optional, I don't see why making it > > mandatory is incorrect for SSH. For nist curves, the verification is about > > public key, not shared secret, it's just performed in the same step. > > I think we're talking past each other. The TLS spec requires that: > > - You do public key validation for FFDHE and NIST curves > - You do output validation for CFRG curves. > > Unless I am misreading your text, you are requiring that you also do output > validation for the NIST curves. Is that correct? If so, can you provide a > source for why? http://www.secg.org/sec1-v2.pdf Section 3.3.1. step 2 of the "Calculate a > shared secret value as follows" algorithm. > Sorry for the delay on this. I've been asking cryptographers. What I understand is that this is redundant for these NIST curves as long as you check the input points, which we do. However, maybe for other curves it is a problem. I guess it's OK to leave here. -Ekr --0000000000008edfec056c81618c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:46 AM, Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com&g= t; wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 A= pril 2018 21:55:21 CEST Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, 13 April 2018 15:41:37 CEST Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> > >

> > > > >= >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 This section defers to [RFC7546] as the source of= information
> >
> > on
> >
> > > > GSS-
> > > >
> > > > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 API context establishment= operations, Section 3 being the
> > > > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 most
> > > > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 relevant.=C2=A0 All Secur= ity Considerations described in [RFC7546]
> > > >
> > > > apply
> > > >
> > > > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 here too.
> > > > >
> > > > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The Client:
> > > > > This section should be refactored to put all the E= C mechanics (which
> > > > > are symmetrical) in one place.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think I understand what changes you'd l= ike to see
> > > >
> > > > both FFDH and ECDH are symmetrical... both client and s= erver need to
> > > > perform
> > > > the same operations...
> > >
> > > Yes, That's why it's confusing to describe their ope= rations in order
> >
> > rather
> >
> > > than
> > > the behavior that a DH peer does and then just the points wh= ere they are
> > > inserted in the protocol. Compare, for instance, the TLS 1.3=
> >
> > specification,
> >
> > > where both KeyShare (https://tools.ietf.org/html/d > > > raft-ietf-tls-tls13-28#page-53) and
> > > the DH computations (https://tools.ietf.org/html/d > > > raft-ietf-tls-tls13-28#section-7.4) are
> > > described in an endpoint agnostic manner. DH is inherently s= ymmetrical.
> >
> > the actions performed in context of GSSAPI-infused key exchange a= ren't
>
> Neither are they in TLS, but we managed to put the DH part in one plac= e.

That's not true:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draf= t-ietf-tls-tls13-28#section-7.4
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13-28#section-4.2.8.1
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13-28#section-4.2.8.2

My point was that they're not separated between Client and Server= ,

=C2=A0 > > RFC 7748 says that the verification is optional, I don't see = why making it
> > mandatory is incorrect for SSH. For nist curves, the verification= is about
> > public key, not shared secret, it's just performed in the sam= e step.
>
> I think we're talking past each other. The TLS spec requires that:=
>
> - You do public key validation for FFDHE and NIST curves
> - You do output validation for CFRG curves.
>
> Unless I am misreading your text, you are requiring that you also do o= utput
> validation for the NIST curves. Is that correct? If so, can you provid= e a
> source for why?

http://www.secg.org/sec1-v2.pdf Section 3.3.1. step 2 of the "Calculate a
shared secret value as follows" algorithm.

Sorry for the delay on this. I've been asking cryptographers. What I= understand
is that this is= redundant for these NIST curves as long as you check
the input points, which we do. However, maybe for ot= her curves it is a problem.
I g= uess it's OK to leave here.

-Ekr


--0000000000008edfec056c81618c-- From nobody Fri May 18 14:12:50 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF1112E04B for ; Fri, 18 May 2018 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 p2IetzElownF for ; Fri, 18 May 2018 14:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ot0-x22f.google.com (mail-ot0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22f]) (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 F193812E04A for ; Fri, 18 May 2018 14:12:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id t1-v6so10655088ott.13 for ; Fri, 18 May 2018 14:12:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3acCfRl0RUnuW0AuhMfwXho0oSGViKdmNFKPRyZw0nw=; b=uiBeGlVjhr2f33VphLtw0zYM5XULHn90pUjv0FscMnSr0JirSs7K2yLIQMK58ePcWc cQAgdRoTGb46sAAZufcbrCZ9fy50Zwzed8yTMvPYtB7Y/zzdbmj+nZAqDVNpG/qWaaI+ nk5KjBf0rjyo4ptzCpUHdUzGZXlQWs9QkIbVCmX10cl4VRnhdqXQ7kRwBafE4DlZ+/eG GHHuZduvFeHL3DghPRpwZADOIfFzWtW6QaDLFimsYc1BqeHuTisLwtMYJvKtOq2KdeAi SAtQEDyPHKO0Rdr617Bhe6ZTR/+mij+uvTn6EjegPFVSGGaNZlXuyPYilhVDVnwO7sK4 qiEg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3acCfRl0RUnuW0AuhMfwXho0oSGViKdmNFKPRyZw0nw=; b=W5xeus5HdjI7REoVa7HQuvKpdqBxIf8toxF1eCso76VXm+E+6ZvfFl7bQlvnUfhWJn On+8+HkdPdcRB0Mwm7zH16GGLwLfhDlMRdKtyyvHSehdekNdmwlzpQRhL87+EOwFt8Cv ijoDfq7smucxnQ6XTwIk7mKNk7t9zRSovBfyGXXPZmWps0pFFwh77u+pV4Oz3QeXr7CC iNYjvkak2QO+pXvMLqQw/kht1cybrzAcjLXJOK/i1ozHRVPLSrvv6B9X3S4G0EjtGl7f c5kOZFMOUfKyzdMmggBDK6LhczVd+6+7sOdfqjPP5GYGa9CToF2B0K9F2+pdZVB6vyZz Ow2w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwfFeD1IkTBtK8Uz0Se1zjJfXlmKJ8JTTDEwOFXGq98Fp8qJY5DI S0Y7BXhkh5u0YbIUdm4qg1cm7Cle9SluPHio+QRVtQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZppOLgpMavTU/hXUIfofQjDMg8j8VnTPw2J40F+G2Xoqqmo7bnDAr5rUZWCRrohsaq48dQ3XIn1v0eLDbGuRe0= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:1055:: with SMTP id o21-v6mr7944570oto.371.1526677966397; Fri, 18 May 2018 14:12:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.201.118.130 with HTTP; Fri, 18 May 2018 14:12:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1525201687.32101.39.camel@redhat.com> References: <1555475.KUsr8aTfev@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <3446969.zDdGGYQIsg@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <1525201687.32101.39.camel@redhat.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 14:12:05 -0700 Message-ID: To: Simo Sorce Cc: Hubert Kario , curdle Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dfbd1b056c81699b" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Curdle] AD Review of draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2-05 X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 21:12:49 -0000 --000000000000dfbd1b056c81699b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" These changes look fine, though they only address some of my comments. On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 12:55 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Hubert Kario > wrote: > > > > > I think you're misunderstanding me. My point is that there are already > > > > documents > > > > which describe how to generate the private and public keys for EC. > You > > > > should > > > > be referring to them, not recapitulating their contents here. > > > > > > proposed in https://github.com/simo5/ietf/pull/24 > > > > > > I will review this. > > Hi Eric, > did you have time to look at this ? > Or do you prefer to get a new draft with these changes ? > > Simo. > > > --000000000000dfbd1b056c81699b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
These changes look fine, though they only address some of = my comments.

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Simo Sorce <ssorce@redhat.com>= ; wrote:
On Wed, = 2018-04-25 at 12:55 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > I think you're misunderstanding me. M= y point is that there are already
> > > documents
> > > which describe how to generate the private and public keys f= or EC. You
> > > should
> > > be referring to them, not recapitulating their contents here= .
> >
> > proposed in https://github.com/simo5/ietf/pull/2= 4
>
>
> I will review this.

Hi Eric,
did you have time to look at this ?
Or do you prefer to get a new draft with these changes ?

Simo.



--000000000000dfbd1b056c81699b-- From nobody Mon May 21 10:27:31 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D85312D7E6 for ; Mon, 21 May 2018 10:27:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 uttXfcZpHe_m for ; Mon, 21 May 2018 10:27:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC2F812D7E2 for ; Mon, 21 May 2018 10:27:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89A65C143E7B; Mon, 21 May 2018 17:27:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ovpn-117-5.phx2.redhat.com (ovpn-117-5.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.117.5]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2825B1779D; Mon, 21 May 2018 17:27:27 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1526923646.10011.43.camel@redhat.com> From: Simo Sorce To: Eric Rescorla Cc: Hubert Kario , curdle Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 13:27:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <1555475.KUsr8aTfev@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <3446969.zDdGGYQIsg@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <1525201687.32101.39.camel@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]); Mon, 21 May 2018 17:27:27 +0000 (UTC) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Curdle] AD Review of draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2-05 X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 17:27:30 -0000 On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 14:12 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > These changes look fine, though they only address some of my comments. Just for clarity, is the change to describe the whole DH exchange in one place what you see missing ? Is that a deal breaker ? Anything else ? Simo. > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 12:55 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Hubert Kario > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I think you're misunderstanding me. My point is that there are already > > > > > documents > > > > > which describe how to generate the private and public keys for EC. > > > > You > > > > > should > > > > > be referring to them, not recapitulating their contents here. > > > > > > > > proposed in https://github.com/simo5/ietf/pull/24 > > > > > > > > > I will review this. > > > > Hi Eric, > > did you have time to look at this ? > > Or do you prefer to get a new draft with these changes ? > > > > Simo. > > > > > > From nobody Fri May 25 11:49:57 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietf.org Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C8712E6D7; Fri, 25 May 2018 11:49:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.80.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Cc: The IESG , ekr@rtfm.com, draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die@ietf.org, Daniel Migault , curdle-chairs@ietf.org, curdle@ietf.org, daniel.migault@ericsson.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <152727419485.12935.573333848766473918.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 11:49:54 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Curdle] Protocol Action: 'Deprecate 3DES and RC4 in Kerberos' to Best Current Practice (draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05.txt) X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 18:49:55 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Deprecate 3DES and RC4 in Kerberos' (draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-05.txt) as Best Current Practice This document is the product of the CURves, Deprecating and a Little more Encryption Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Benjamin Kaduk and Eric Rescorla. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die/ Technical Summary The 3DES and RC4 encryption types are steadily weakening in cryptographic strength, and the deprecation process should be begun for their use in Kerberos. Accordingly, RFC 4757 is moved to Obsolete status, as none of the encryption types it specifies should be used, and RFC 3961 is updated to note the deprecation of the triple-DES encryption types. Working Group Summary No controversy. Document Quality This does not apply here. My understanding is implementations are likely to implement the draft, especially with the "SHOULD NOT" recommendation. Both co-authors expect to start the deprecation process which is slow to achieve as there is now a long deployment history. A deprecation will not remove the actual software implementation right away, but progressively disable it. Personnel Daniel Migault is the shepherd, Eric Rescorla is the AD From nobody Tue May 29 12:28:19 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B141512E8A9 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 12:28:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.608 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 P_U3-HlcSuQx for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 12:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x22b.google.com (mail-oi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22b]) (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 6377112EBD5 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 12:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id t22-v6so10707176oih.6 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 12:28:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EqYIHWXBIRSWQ0di3+S9tnshSrSIlYRkim2jc8v0Knk=; b=IDwvmOa0da3My1bYXA+TNwiLWlmIOyHAWWEcN0DupvDEW33kCNK2Aov7mjrDHeMO5s m1AeuRE+ZBHnI+R1NwBuRTMS+TDVsruUlKeTSsM0ynxzL3FC+oZvP2KQpbDmr5f0L0A1 DZtiXcmUnbnqqPMvlEeHOeI2H51RcfeEYMP+BboP+9Am88vF/6oUh1s9F2TiqYf1RKqg 4SwhK45pNayu5A137MX5L0rUEjUJt0Ody2mnANvHMR/MCdxLhsgpRd0EgZae3JCXcdX/ G4WTfr1wPBPUtiZlfrrpZVqP3lDQ92KzgEJ/iMhD5kp+98lUqttWcD1l/nY+fLIsn4Pr rKQQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EqYIHWXBIRSWQ0di3+S9tnshSrSIlYRkim2jc8v0Knk=; b=tbazU9ECXOZixCsRHrT8D7bhTVAJ8Icw/SiRBJB4FLDETJmxdZUyoSvULtpF8PDV8E BO7AeOtebzE/SghL3ORVUU3IlkbQjy4Q3kRhrWnpo/xa5faNWZO7Obazxs/ACfimqeTz 8ZncsdvL8AfgunbdPxpifAOpfJJC6lyUW+PxzRjHpjybRZ7vcF1TU42wKeOUPg+FiLF4 kGjXrB7aUI2gXTzkAajfFj9UZiTmltqdcaVdSESHywa/qUV5ZCKVUCEkZTOJjGubhMR8 MN7Y0yXkHPNogOXbD5CyTGKlWCnkfg5rvcDwxiQRhZWeYOJLUhgW+n55+KTwvaAZ2xEa aRcw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwdUzIjWpZTFm7DS5r7Y4ZqHjuKj4cQZviO82clZCtq8oLgPq3RU DbiIa6tR9zm3fWr7x75t0hI1j1F88LCENlT8v38wSA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKIJZWo93rB2Fj/6v4s4qo1msF0kQhonk2JzSSfwWNO6BdjP1cAIqPrLv8IQIhrtIEq8TLLfNqmLrp3U6ivxXus= X-Received: by 2002:aca:4f0d:: with SMTP id d13-v6mr300315oib.138.1527622094729; Tue, 29 May 2018 12:28:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:ac9:66:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 29 May 2018 12:27:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1526923646.10011.43.camel@redhat.com> References: <1555475.KUsr8aTfev@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <3446969.zDdGGYQIsg@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <1525201687.32101.39.camel@redhat.com> <1526923646.10011.43.camel@redhat.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 12:27:34 -0700 Message-ID: To: Simo Sorce Cc: Hubert Kario , curdle Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004eca10056d5d3c88" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Curdle] AD Review of draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2-05 X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 19:28:18 -0000 --0000000000004eca10056d5d3c88 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 14:12 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > These changes look fine, though they only address some of my comments. > > Just for clarity, is the change to describe the whole DH exchange in > one place what you see missing ? Is that a deal breaker ? > Anything else ? > That and the repeated text that is the same for each group. I'm not sure it's a dealbreaker, but it's a real point of concern for me. Is there strong WG consensus to retain the current structure, or is this just what happens to be there. -Ekr > Simo. > > > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 12:55 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Hubert Kario > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think you're misunderstanding me. My point is that there are > already > > > > > > documents > > > > > > which describe how to generate the private and public keys for > EC. > > > > > > You > > > > > > should > > > > > > be referring to them, not recapitulating their contents here. > > > > > > > > > > proposed in https://github.com/simo5/ietf/pull/24 > > > > > > > > > > > > I will review this. > > > > > > Hi Eric, > > > did you have time to look at this ? > > > Or do you prefer to get a new draft with these changes ? > > > > > > Simo. > > > > > > > > > > --0000000000004eca10056d5d3c88 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Simo Sorce <ssorce@redhat.com>= ; wrote:
On Fri, = 2018-05-18 at 14:12 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> These changes look fine, though they only address some of my comments.=

Just for clarity, is the change to describe the whole DH exchange in=
one place what you see missing ? Is that a deal breaker ?
Anything else ?

That and the repeated text t= hat is the same for each group.

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">I'm not sure it's a dealbreaker, but it&#= 39;s a real point of concern for me. Is there
strong WG consensus to retain the current structure, or is this just wha= t happens
to be there.

-Ekr


Simo.

> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Simo Sorce <ssorce@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 12:55 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think you're misunderstanding me. My point is tha= t there are already
> > > > > documents
> > > > > which describe how to generate the private and pub= lic keys for EC.
> >
> > You
> > > > > should
> > > > > be referring to them, not recapitulating their con= tents here.
> > > >
> > > > proposed in https://github.com/simo5/ietf/<= wbr>pull/24
> > >
> > >
> > > I will review this.
> >
> > Hi Eric,
> > did you have time to look at this ?
> > Or do you prefer to get a new draft with these changes ?
> >
> > Simo.
> >
> >
> >

--0000000000004eca10056d5d3c88-- From nobody Tue May 29 13:39:18 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF0012EBAB for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 13:39:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net 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 j7iWzkulYt39 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 13:39:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E123F12EB96 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 13:39:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0108156.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w4TKcxTX020334; Tue, 29 May 2018 13:39:14 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : from : date : message-id : sender : mime-version : content-type; s=PPS1017; bh=V2Y0c8lCghO9Am+oe3HuCb/7R37TKtfSRXfY8F4oUZ8=; b=GsVFaxdVQJXB9dgsBg2WBrXUFvBhw0d1nimlLRKyIHmRQjODDHV34TCG/8CqYg0CaCbN +Uexyg29QSI0GPBo7PGCPP8+FXQ/++SgFBRqqcpicJPp+OueEADJ8fIhzF+4eaPfOJxB b3xUgOzt1EPMeQAaUk6ZyXtx9QoomhsuuU3bXYhxwF+gOI2eo+pWhIIYlDxt8QsqI5ld 73uDB32pLDuUdnYXh6aL4XCRY4mCtrO3NAckNOeYYv7s6wiUmOwolDuSd5H/4cXGK4+q UkOIHYIyuiShTAu/iqpuqgxTYO4yHX9EEHWO8wiWcYqo6rInf0zzC21cZzuMVVqveJ7x mA== Received: from nam01-bn3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam01lp0181.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.180.181]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2j9cx3gcdw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 29 May 2018 13:39:14 -0700 Received: from BN3PR05CA0014.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:400::24) by BN3PR0501MB1187.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:400e::19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.820.5; Tue, 29 May 2018 20:39:11 +0000 Received: from CO1NAM05FT044.eop-nam05.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:f400:7e50::207) by BN3PR05CA0014.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:400::24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.776.4 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 29 May 2018 20:39:11 +0000 Received-SPF: SoftFail (protection.outlook.com: domain of transitioning juniper.net discourages use of 66.129.239.15 as permitted sender) Received: from P-EMFE01C-SAC.jnpr.net (66.129.239.15) by CO1NAM05FT044.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.96.158) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA_P384) id 15.20.820.5 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 29 May 2018 20:39:09 +0000 Received: from p-mailhub01.juniper.net (10.47.226.20) by P-EMFE01C-SAC.jnpr.net (172.24.192.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Tue, 29 May 2018 13:37:26 -0700 Received: from eng-mail01.juniper.net (eng-mail01.juniper.net [172.17.28.114]) by p-mailhub01.juniper.net (8.14.4/8.11.3) with ESMTP id w4TKbP3Z024597; Tue, 29 May 2018 13:37:25 -0700 (envelope-from mdb@juniper.net) Received: from eng-mail01.juniper.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eng-mail01.juniper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 137821144E; Tue, 29 May 2018 13:37:24 -0700 (PDT) To: Eric Rescorla CC: Simo Sorce , curdle , Hubert Kario In-Reply-To: References: <1555475.KUsr8aTfev@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <3446969.zDdGGYQIsg@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <1525201687.32101.39.camel@redhat.com> <1526923646.10011.43.camel@redhat.com> Comments: In-reply-to: Eric Rescorla message dated "Tue, 29 May 2018 12:27:34 -0700." From: "Mark D. Baushke" Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 13:37:24 -0700 Message-ID: <45656.1527626244@eng-mail01.juniper.net> Sender: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-MS-Office365-Filtering-HT: Tenant X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.239.15; IPV:NLI; CTRY:US; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(346002)(39380400002)(376002)(396003)(39860400002)(2980300002)(199004)(189003)(51416003)(11346002)(7696005)(53416004)(76506005)(8676002)(305945005)(68736007)(7846003)(6392003)(55016002)(336012)(356003)(426003)(446003)(486006)(76176011)(6916009)(126002)(476003)(117636001)(7126003)(2906002)(69596002)(48376002)(50466002)(93886005)(2810700001)(97876018)(4743002)(478600001)(106466001)(54906003)(229853002)(8936002)(5660300001)(81166006)(105596002)(97736004)(81156014)(316002)(16586007)(86362001)(26005)(53936002)(47776003)(77096007)(6346003)(4326008)(6266002)(186003)(6246003)(42262002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR0501MB1187; H:P-EMFE01C-SAC.jnpr.net; FPR:; SPF:SoftFail; LANG:en; PTR:InfoDomainNonexistent; A:1; MX:1; X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; CO1NAM05FT044; 1:/7CgXQK/REfG3oQfStfDfUsRRbUVtVhKNDoMxBO3dgTf+fICX0VhHrD/OE/ngKF4wjWU8Lk/atDwLTaNRi4lnwBi36/hJ6N/Y+24YNJ9n2mHJ8ynsIXUhQ80/eCL6wMD X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(5600026)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603328)(7153060); SRVR:BN3PR0501MB1187; X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0501MB1187; 3:MiJmGxWKafnU3wmDEAYlkmD9FSjxnJOFXgQvTQy8JGJi97mcglYYnARI2QTkEdZId7yluWY2lYUNsQVqj6ju2G/wtLXVYY4NVerGtjmHkXzXxIpYWRHYsQeXdfFxFiWNnERn2jfEMckja0x4u8Dtv+EyPicU2QK2h5/+VdXubxpgRH3n75Ms+z0y3S1Wvnde/5rIsXgH3+sxsdU7+QvUDqlQ9/WYl2PA2hgOupS6lzb8BI2hTyguERMBJHlKIZMC1QOI4q4ZpMffaAPM5IA9C3maq0Qs9QkrlMTc8h9vL8qH1S/nyLxJq3GQqjnSOomO2G1JXPNZAtnhdcJeRlUcI4GL3kf4MCbLz5t7rjhGK2o=; 25:XhDqvgXLwHBHoLdeA+jdkY9SrOXCzsf7YqWMeAbgX+oUyWVYYSqCG1qDJxvqukHguzOdtH/TUgQTJ2yaf9PcizIvyQ1OnFuFPPLEBBy3LfX0UBAuwFghIAHh9EnRSLQQHB6063x8Qz0al8nlkFCHv0jUTiNNe2EHpTT7Gbs7ybd8y9QIR0n4Tos3nN/AFnAytHlUEEG+q4WqjEBEZsiSWWWm2p6COKcfOWZ69w1BkgapyzOz2W9yxFqQ46QwqS1IClnWx52bCP9w+VqzW/cDXimrY2FVUM0bB4jSIpKyP7/CBWfndnP7eaHxny03GvWdAdNBFY7uWFaPSUB0sLtKGQ== X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: BN3PR0501MB1187: X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0501MB1187; 31:p9XKogd4Ktbt8Haifx7W8caHkSPgT0sGUeE3nQAvGWRD1YepUSB2CS670H4LQ+zWfmtJyQJERDZyTis7HXP4EgC0S6F/sAvaD1ooUb67S+0+ZvmXJvMqM7U+D7o07EeXgYYsYVkfxSOK+BBLTF6JPz6KzyvTdCvipCfMYLacQHahpeUe3KR1iHHFCDOl5TupmP01n08LYKUtmRB1MP0W/Xjo6FkQ3W9cX9jUSV7B5Eg=; 20:irRRCYGdgIWYLamXlAo0t9GCEJj1WS6259JDF2lUzZ0zoZBoxFLrgN0XyOdeAIulMrNjyY+pxb3tRWRWD9G2LnCkoKodzzZo9KqrbGvIHJZexQXzBqbQqh7Ve3wkGvPG4NaaAsV//rV3PEOO8c8bF5V7XRVe50y+fs6nc/IQtRF4RWDaM392wZyurtBtxTA96x+aoYedLIf2JsT2hOFXTb1BXKxmwcBSSh9wyRtgFEZ3HHvQ0ikIU24rxg2bCNl06bCbi037bBCD7In/rtadAbUmhs9VkD2NbNCeiijNtBGZHtduOMZ9etXETxRWTUuPA2TWyIRBtaam7BwJK3/UoNlohl7ZEMy0imviRUBUIzy5arLyvAW5bH7NGZtNvx1V2CGUjG+KyhHhpi69a8kOFIgKdxHRMkVokXOxAlHPJFyduARIBv9blYA83PXTKTE4aPOnCdsUdysVpMHcW5umlnQ0OXBh3cdTE5T5prqw3yCfOYlls3mXRHGBNtJycqCf X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:(100405760836317); X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1 X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(3231254)(944501410)(52105095)(3002001)(6055026)(149027)(150027)(6041310)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(20161123558120)(20161123562045)(6072148)(201708071742011)(7699016); SRVR:BN3PR0501MB1187; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN3PR0501MB1187; X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0501MB1187; 4:bdlZnnzjSygxahByBjcM/D9pOTL+z0+UPT5Bu8Uoxobrd9i8HgxrBCLtmx79AV4pWy0mnO1aMIjLpmiyd4av0v4oRj1zYXafTXctJA200KyVlAFEnIm/RTGORlU5RaQ/9bSx8ZL4M80Yv/gq83fyZbXjeiwzB5BGicb3cFuEbgat1ytTGwgnwjnCrLRwtnX5uIX3oi07x7r1DhWF81iWKkV6HzTVcQjzfaKGwz04cGDOyj2dKyl/4e0K/pRfzKhGoOX/gtqmoEVmteQCMlBN1gRxHZ5HNy9IQaaPNUSXcNvZdQlXG7quWHzu9okarz4A X-Forefront-PRVS: 0687389FB0 X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: =?us-ascii?Q?1; BN3PR0501MB1187; 23:z221Ke3YvK2vssBFbQsCiUZJaU5eGPR78keiQgE?= =?us-ascii?Q?YdeQ5mUQ80JlXYCJUQD7t6vTIxWl23L6T8XLLSDotn4RWZvP4epalXe7r1aN?= =?us-ascii?Q?U6r5V4/e5t41ySQ9QMbTnK53vl1hGeCRAl+jFIONc4X6BT6iQfKC1VezAbUI?= =?us-ascii?Q?hKy00NUOrCpe7yUjwH/ts4rjXZfve+ZEgcv7qGZvBvKQ3/SOd8CTBWerAlwN?= =?us-ascii?Q?AbjBVAubjJlRpVWJleIUnxjnC83s617BRSmJo1YeuW3vWVrCQG+0FZWJlkO0?= =?us-ascii?Q?Ha13NFeZB9PJ6Tw57FEfgLvAcmB2UnfIsJsHRoKaJN+r5AA5eAZXUX3p1/AI?= =?us-ascii?Q?87+i4g8skmjqNF5rG0xN90/Oa1PeHaMKpYXMHwxqyFcZR062s20lQSVJ7fx2?= =?us-ascii?Q?+KjVpY4KP+nYch9oS2ar4m+gHooyER8uvhrbkBxu0/Tq2WfAG7L0DPV2q6tl?= =?us-ascii?Q?p8zL0EtnZZdVqpp5qc4GJzjNH0sbk+Zs7b15Fhe6fzYj7Uz43/ZF6pWI/7Mf?= =?us-ascii?Q?9EhzpQ31h0/L26SdPrNwK7eungaZ4EwUHKrMddYwcUagnfDv/oCah9nar3rn?= =?us-ascii?Q?oeGefQBU4NJuGJM0HO3lO8hJqGbQl+/8DTMOmPeCMi7pS/nxGAuPeT24m/vt?= =?us-ascii?Q?COo5EU2NalANEOREb4vmFaH3ulbkJKGyNgQF//CMSntn8UMyzN+AjITXiHiS?= =?us-ascii?Q?ayGeTLiV3VMMHBafwcSuVeIGOcqAad3sydEpJUjNGe7xp7uBz4pMLveakxEE?= =?us-ascii?Q?rrbcgTgkCSGPVWFVJRSF24cZS4oaumxCPwH7tqKzMDLusLzKWGuMPiLtdoiA?= =?us-ascii?Q?N5U5XVE5rkwPe335CIWLSmF718n9KvEgZhGEn90PV7Cojch6wwAstgYC97FI?= =?us-ascii?Q?HQQUjoWrNV+4yDt/cXUSdcIc3fk8Ud4vkpCoYG4g5gjtaOXI0D89JbusqWrW?= =?us-ascii?Q?LaKZGJ8KT/OoREJ/20F9tB0xLCf5QIagD8Z1Zb9BcHEEVoyfLlnp3xtk+z58?= =?us-ascii?Q?/T9vj8wO9Jt+UHWbUCCrFS2vmIOoAShMy4NDkWtIAE6y3yHxDoPYzqmbCGCa?= =?us-ascii?Q?9Rs/wz5CzxBUT/u6extVlkljF/OjPlsdTQuUAKYwVP7JAtOKyFerbNqr/fvC?= =?us-ascii?Q?Mn3V92HscuLSS7+6cLvEQuJEuaCurezk08Joh6Ak4SQyNAOXzReDNlFowFx+?= =?us-ascii?Q?rbzXKbrBJYCtExMM1qty8RScxXyNYM0EPKPzRDazNc2YqF4r2sjHhj+VP8Nc?= =?us-ascii?Q?Sg5jgDNgoPGfYGLcuYosWBUZmPLY39z65HbI+CpbdthMIdCOHNlkiDccbwQr?= =?us-ascii?Q?tNe2nPI63o+WoNrqLFpYWLMyNFyp0JmnOP67HrZvBC9O4FR92K9ABcCQXeKh?= =?us-ascii?Q?yPGQD7A=3D=3D?= X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: lVvlLcTqjm4J9DHR9bGlBZ+EFEAQa8yfSxIaeUvFBw4VA/SS8irI7/aTlDlQ8Rb2WzvrMY4qXUpPoYO2BVtMs+P2TiTUDbTrarzRFQksOGCiVY2EvpAGLty/MMqVtAUpBPYOfaJyDig3JaA5il5klRnbejJIk2+rlBaFTCM2rEw+IjmfDwPHZcR87aiUMYWm X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0501MB1187; 6:ryQ8QBloh0C8cxKX3eG7ArtST3y96X6aw6NygoZs1WjRsCT6K3cOogSmUx7wSBZuSQRQje20iWJLbUjPEY+IWEvALeJQ8GbCU3eQA3CSbsjCnFZTVWz8Vevk/T9FS1k5ySRQXm6H7QzhCilRkjYGiwCYKUahpXXy7dy6JrpOEJ8lmslM7zIgdZrdkLAWwPT9aDI/BP5zYMXknsUPjw0Q2aBDcNpEx/e9Js7fE3pweIAdxEMQlK8y+3i3qA8nYjCnbG8I0u6Z75/7YgDvWFmlsceF1yf/ne9JtDtfrDeeTPODDXyF4n/KmkVe0j92+vGshIclRzbquE6WXSTMGWhfCfAOnCdAHL1BuiLrHPwnaDjtCm3xA1wiW7bk4Z46/VzL+Xi51rtZBqUAXJIJ28r/EDnu7VVCkxyGuh1QePEJBBiuio9kHYipO9WPo/2TA5jvFwxA4+qgT7QZRd0boEL0aQ==; 5:JOu5bgk7U6IR2PA9/TOy3cFxzwiRpiH59PxaTcBWA7BO35wUio3o6lORVI6AtN6Y0LQjiZuVyihFUNr9NASkTz0wJHxGVZubgCb1itCczwwb4XLgCJ6yMc5qtsvB0g045lIC8hMStN9BdwEp6BnW/qT+QAChM8nH0/OZ7G99m/M=; 24:l8dnJibyDI7MZcGx4Pzph2zVYmJVaE1DwQQuMf1XVcgzZjf6A8CPV6dGqnIHYqi85wFhZjx1CNRHwUECGDYg02EZ4i7EUNJFJ0o6IiW9M1U= SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99 SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0501MB1187; 7:JzjdDuCsltBsTfR5iZFF6Mgb9PEeVo0HWG6KmMLPhEE0MGu+h+ZolPYHqG/qilKtYsm4ziAU+DR9MQahxJMRfKQclbt5Z9XchKH1WwG3DorXY6nNT76dh3G0MFVzDIYnY90z9GiukW2v1u7aYYkTSUmAaBMfHfyKZs79V/ppyoypn5XpON8kV0GWwLI78JCdqpmeXUJJgMPnItRfbpGtUZ1pS4ZVS1yR/20nfH5GSMta4HTT36kPOidq00tO20Qm X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 991b1486-77a9-4abd-e10a-08d5c5a43b7c X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 May 2018 20:39:09.1453 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 991b1486-77a9-4abd-e10a-08d5c5a43b7c X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; Ip=[66.129.239.15]; Helo=[P-EMFE01C-SAC.jnpr.net] X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR0501MB1187 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-05-29_09:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=784 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1805220000 definitions=main-1805290218 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Curdle] AD Review of draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2-05 X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 20:39:17 -0000 Eric Rescorla writes: > Is there strong WG consensus to retain the current structure, or is > this just what happens to be there. I do not believe that the question was raised in the Curdle Working Group. If you think there should be a different structure, could you provide an outline of what you would find most useful? For this draft, I am just another member of the WG. -- Mark From nobody Tue May 29 13:42:43 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C908A12EAEC for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 13:42:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.402 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 FA7LUOkc1jam for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 13:42:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x244.google.com (mail-lf0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::244]) (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 659FD12E8CD for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 13:42:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x244.google.com with SMTP id h9-v6so819202lfc.13 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 13:42:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=b1gA4E+Zx7rK/4ZCNJ3Ve3mWX6BOKqNP4ksc6gWEsUQ=; b=NPYcdiqm6vHLU/2Hoa+7WY0qvpnTUXuw1oOe1kcR6mI4YGizABWutyZQCw0wNOMbV7 1VmNwWLPO3oFxgYk9iqkt6ikf9W8yqzpe5v8f13XZs/zngRcM4KWHcI5SUq4NFqn7MVq FbS3RXGu7M1h/mFk1sZz/ZyfAOjNB7RwpIg09tzkFUTRj850vn+tOR4x/dA0iFUTA3bI 0hmYzkMVVj5h0/A0vnNcq5AYlrjEQ4oHcuNT2ZaNUw3laMzGMGLSqXI2TF/p55bnRGmU XsTwK7O9Rs586liBti+hojYLbfGM7xOR9YGSBaERXvLZ9ZeZfOCt6IyDMvedFYLxqoUY b7mw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=b1gA4E+Zx7rK/4ZCNJ3Ve3mWX6BOKqNP4ksc6gWEsUQ=; b=BOP5O9lwQmoVzsO1i21ejRJN7LjrIrzWh54tj+lS8M8zezs9AXizTRjwx5EiVnOjDs Yi8AOPrPop2QtNfDXkbCH5EVi9ouGDigZZfRJRNOeQAR9PedSZdPU7u9f+onuywueH3f vqPWK298HJVHdn7+/7vp/HtJke4dzOnek4cICckQ42KPD2tfdHejD8MwQhluXxng1Jkc q6wGwx4J2gSfaD1KJ9sSK6AuVHx2whTgaSlfneXJ+3abmVi59qR+zcZU36DBAJP0O+x4 XddiaYVdS1N5+Uo66vNbA+u0UBI+bSQLLIHZqvVBke6/9eMY10f6ZATtgpSoBRbSEdaK n6sw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwf0LoCtHmBPj8SWslUJ0OoB/31N74GvShJp3Yl6crZ94pjQUmC9 qPCaqV5hcOiEqJAYrLu7xKvq+wF9HsEkvOODvBo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJxZ7S+IaCrdxasyn7bDzwXyMQKRfte8t/BSAdlGIW2KRmUav+gR4xkUYfDYyduf7E234BYabCqx7CCFLOq/CY= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9d07:: with SMTP id t7-v6mr12040794lji.7.1527626557455; Tue, 29 May 2018 13:42:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mglt.ietf@gmail.com Received: by 2002:a2e:510a:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 29 May 2018 13:42:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <45656.1527626244@eng-mail01.juniper.net> References: <1555475.KUsr8aTfev@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <3446969.zDdGGYQIsg@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <1525201687.32101.39.camel@redhat.com> <1526923646.10011.43.camel@redhat.com> <45656.1527626244@eng-mail01.juniper.net> From: Daniel Migault Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 16:42:36 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: tH_QP8hpU7BpdUSAXLq3l6d_EV8 Message-ID: To: "Mark D. Baushke" Cc: Eric Rescorla , curdle , Simo Sorce , Hubert Kario Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004e8226056d5e46ef" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Curdle] AD Review of draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2-05 X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 20:42:42 -0000 --0000000000004e8226056d5e46ef Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, The structure has not been raised nor discussed in the WG. Yours, Daniel On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Mark D. Baushke wrote: > Eric Rescorla writes: > > > Is there strong WG consensus to retain the current structure, or is > > this just what happens to be there. > > I do not believe that the question was raised in the Curdle Working Group. > > If you think there should be a different structure, could you provide an > outline of what you would find most useful? > > For this draft, I am just another member of the WG. > > -- Mark > > _______________________________________________ > Curdle mailing list > Curdle@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/curdle > --0000000000004e8226056d5e46ef Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

The structure has n= ot been raised nor discussed in the WG.

Yours= ,
Daniel

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Mark D. Baushke <mdb@= juniper.net> wrote:
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> writes:

> Is there strong WG consensus to retain the current structure, or is > this just what happens to be there.

I do not believe that the question was raised in the Curdle Working = Group.

If you think there should be a different structure, could you provide an outline of what you would find most useful?

For this draft, I am just another member of the WG.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 -- Mark

_______________________________________________
Curdle mailing list
Curdle@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/curdle

--0000000000004e8226056d5e46ef-- From nobody Tue May 29 15:06:14 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 284D112EB04 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 15:06:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.608 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 XvWqo_FjRLp2 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 15:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x22c.google.com (mail-oi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22c]) (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 B6A4012D775 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 15:06:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 11-v6so14518732ois.8 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 15:06:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ohmbGurxNIh4FTykauEpvt4eM1hh8O909cidX4e8Djs=; b=ArZ91O3cUmgntHrM/KtfhDf95Yhg7lxv2CL4surr8DY1XSwzWmDcjll6rssM90v58j 0vlSBGUmV0DzGsRxMJmDslfRkpkAZAiz7hrlZsGJpVjM6YxK8MHuLF3k8YYh+cNwDqut 06yxorBfEBi6pz8cpNy638ASKE+PJm6fL3QfJjjQY6iyVbx0KIKLO9oAfVrZnzx/R266 D4asGw1DqKWp7iXRfJkK7P/KLi2txFIcWqjzw0GMVdZrmq+vxJlXS5RiMaRJGd7UW3VT bn/aug4MLCRyStnizWKmQIPLDLsUhzshDopu4kHMptOJvHvXxc+tcU/gghVPmeDeHpzM UJGQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ohmbGurxNIh4FTykauEpvt4eM1hh8O909cidX4e8Djs=; b=RCJErwS1xtKu3ih3eZwDzefBKwjS0oJZTXiF9aFMzGiFwRp1wChzP9ud2GfFVl7CBC k463i6bXBLzeFwTFGFQ8bXcIZ/phC6j//ubZ4aLgLo8GrkNAg4yCGaXnMp6265cy8qIU xt2agZ9X/GqKGwT3ZQ1aSm7htQ1opWi9zltMkcGBGHnTfACR/aSb02KdmDs3NsWIwsGJ B3+6azbQTHuinB7sNk7qMGDdR5dGfM6788swUBF666czkzOtwQgOIFMw6aj/b1ldHoCq 0gnngr2KxNjRIjYp+KSwr1Lq/Nt5kvktjup8/9xRRo6ReH3qpg9KU4y2AcG3+MQJBdhj ThSg== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3bBZv75i9J7jq1oU3Ie+DECibTdqFiYvVXfhwNLcEMumqfI+Fo uBrwt0kuf0vMpvK9IR1murPZJoDSkEniwHhjR6ceQQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKIQm6eU1jjytYoRvorrbqeldtWLyqoCDs92HIzlSVmMA8a3OhOIh8cMqd9ddfgnvg8dpNCWg5ZZmHkfhfPrnr8= X-Received: by 2002:aca:3c8b:: with SMTP id j133-v6mr131752oia.91.1527631565059; Tue, 29 May 2018 15:06:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:ac9:66:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 29 May 2018 15:05:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <45656.1527626244@eng-mail01.juniper.net> References: <1555475.KUsr8aTfev@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <3446969.zDdGGYQIsg@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <1525201687.32101.39.camel@redhat.com> <1526923646.10011.43.camel@redhat.com> <45656.1527626244@eng-mail01.juniper.net> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 15:05:24 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Mark D. Baushke" Cc: curdle , Simo Sorce , Hubert Kario Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c88cda056d5f7097" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Curdle] AD Review of draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2-05 X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 22:06:13 -0000 --000000000000c88cda056d5f7097 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Mark D. Baushke wrote: > Eric Rescorla writes: > > > Is there strong WG consensus to retain the current structure, or is > > this just what happens to be there. > > I do not believe that the question was raised in the Curdle Working Group. > > If you think there should be a different structure, could you provide an > outline of what you would find most useful? > Fair enough. Is this in Github? I can provide a sketchy PR. -Ekr > For this draft, I am just another member of the WG. > > -- Mark > > _______________________________________________ > Curdle mailing list > Curdle@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/curdle > --000000000000c88cda056d5f7097 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Mark D. Baushke <= mdb@juniper.net>= ; wrote:
Eric Res= corla <ekr@rtfm.com> writes:

> Is there strong WG consensus to retain the current structure, or is > this just what happens to be there.

I do not believe that the question was raised in the Curdle Working = Group.

If you think there should be a different structure, could you provide an outline of what you would find most useful?

=
Fair enough. Is this in Github? I can provide a sketchy PR.
=
-Ekr


For this draft, I am just another member of the WG.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 -- Mark

_______________________________________________
Curdle mailing list
Curdle@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/curdle

--000000000000c88cda056d5f7097-- From nobody Tue May 29 18:33:44 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 121C112D94F for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 18:33:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.71 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com 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 6ERAUAAZ2P84 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 18:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5982B120227 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 18:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0050095.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w4U1W3TR005261; Wed, 30 May 2018 02:33:39 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=DCJJ9smjS+hXYssXOE3zUnDPFLHSs77W98ZxunR9/Sc=; b=ED1cX731f3R9qObGBJKi6Z0ak5DQs5VfIh5U/EBr9KG2Q5ceNu63K2vBBod0Wt8jIwnq mVdOlieAYG95brixt8IS30oQWKZ9+VC3Zbwqner7nyVNZbrEjcQMFuHNoHfck8meIcQ0 dvvkXYBu8bcUUmdGrGk9HSEgscrdesdAK+c7znNAE006Z8xHWMntfcA3D2uXFU3M25v7 k6mYzw56aFt/ND099mrfQeY7bB2ag9Tz99Cr9uOqNnyzkNmYTxGEqUZrwATaTSaEp4DW izyHzcz6Ssdbe4HUwpqWO+7kup9wpV0/AC2CyWQbO1Erw7nVilZ3VbryXLTH5koEgn3z /Q== Received: from prod-mail-ppoint4 (a96-6-114-87.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [96.6.114.87] (may be forged)) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2j9cw80wjx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 30 May 2018 02:33:39 +0100 Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id w4U1UWUI023874; Tue, 29 May 2018 21:33:38 -0400 Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.25.31]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2j9cvv1531-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 29 May 2018 21:33:38 -0400 Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.101) by ustx2ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1365.1; Tue, 29 May 2018 20:33:38 -0500 Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.6.131]) by ustx2ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.6.131]) with mapi id 15.00.1365.000; Tue, 29 May 2018 20:33:37 -0500 From: "Salz, Rich" To: Eric Rescorla , "Mark D. Baushke" CC: curdle , Simo Sorce , Hubert Kario Thread-Topic: [Curdle] AD Review of draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2-05 Thread-Index: AQHT7uzf7KgGL0FItEaJIfNNjvRT0KQ6x/AAgAy0OAD//8BCcoAAa9cA///26QA= Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 01:33:37 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1555475.KUsr8aTfev@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <3446969.zDdGGYQIsg@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <1525201687.32101.39.camel@redhat.com> <1526923646.10011.43.camel@redhat.com> <45656.1527626244@eng-mail01.juniper.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.d.1.180523 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [172.19.33.137] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FFBE3FE119504A6F86BA3462B7F1B624akamaicom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-05-29_10:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=956 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1805220000 definitions=main-1805300013 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-05-29_10:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=885 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1805220000 definitions=main-1805300014 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Curdle] AD Review of draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2-05 X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 01:33:42 -0000 --_000_FFBE3FE119504A6F86BA3462B7F1B624akamaicom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 ICAqICAgRmFpciBlbm91Z2guIElzIHRoaXMgaW4gR2l0aHViPyBJIGNhbiBwcm92aWRlIGEgc2tl dGNoeSBQUi4NCg0KQW5kIHRoZSByYXRpb25hbGUsIG9idmlvdXNseS4gIEFsdGhvdWdoIHRoYXQg Y2FuIChwcm9iYWJseSBzaG91bGQpIGJlIFBSIG1ldGFkYXRhLg0K --_000_FFBE3FE119504A6F86BA3462B7F1B624akamaicom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <1F60E23BA72CA14A817EDEB62CD8496F@akamai.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6bz0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6b2ZmaWNlIiB4 bWxuczp3PSJ1cm46c2NoZW1hcy1taWNyb3NvZnQtY29tOm9mZmljZTp3b3JkIiB4bWxuczptPSJo dHRwOi8vc2NoZW1hcy5taWNyb3NvZnQuY29tL29mZmljZS8yMDA0LzEyL29tbWwiIHhtbG5zPSJo dHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy9UUi9SRUMtaHRtbDQwIj4NCjxoZWFkPg0KPG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVp dj0iQ29udGVudC1UeXBlIiBjb250ZW50PSJ0ZXh0L2h0bWw7IGNoYXJzZXQ9dXRmLTgiPg0KPG1l dGEgbmFtZT0iR2VuZXJhdG9yIiBjb250ZW50PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAxNSAoZmlsdGVyZWQg bWVkaXVtKSI+DQo8c3R5bGU+PCEtLQ0KLyogRm9udCBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KQGZvbnQtZmFj ZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6NSAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAg MDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYW1icmlhIE1hdGgiOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0x OjIgNCA1IDMgNSA0IDYgMyAyIDQ7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpDYWxpYnJp Ow0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMTUgNSAyIDIgMiA0IDMgMiA0O30NCi8qIFN0eWxlIERlZmluaXRpb25z ICovDQpwLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgbGkuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBkaXYuTXNvTm9ybWFsDQoJe21hcmdpbjow aW47DQoJbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTouMDAwMXB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1m YW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7fQ0KYTpsaW5rLCBzcGFuLk1zb0h5cGVybGluaw0K CXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6Ymx1ZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246 dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCmE6dmlzaXRlZCwgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmtGb2xsb3dlZA0KCXttc28t c3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6cHVycGxlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjp1bmRl cmxpbmU7fQ0KcC5Nc29MaXN0UGFyYWdyYXBoLCBsaS5Nc29MaXN0UGFyYWdyYXBoLCBkaXYuTXNv TGlzdFBhcmFncmFwaA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6MzQ7DQoJbWFyZ2luLXRvcDowaW47 DQoJbWFyZ2luLXJpZ2h0OjBpbjsNCgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjBpbjsNCgltYXJnaW4tbGVmdDou NWluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIixzYW5zLXNlcmlmO30NCnAubXNvbm9ybWFsMCwgbGkubXNvbm9ybWFs MCwgZGl2Lm1zb25vcm1hbDANCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLW5hbWU6bXNvbm9ybWFsOw0KCW1zby1tYXJn aW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1yaWdodDowaW47DQoJbXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20t YWx0OmF1dG87DQoJbWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MGluOw0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1m YW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5ob2VuemINCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLW5h bWU6aG9lbnpiO30NCnNwYW4uRW1haWxTdHlsZTE5DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBlcnNvbmFs LXJlcGx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIixzYW5zLXNlcmlmOw0KCWNvbG9yOndpbmRv d3RleHQ7fQ0KLk1zb0NocERlZmF1bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9ubHk7DQoJ Zm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDt9DQpAcGFnZSBXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7c2l6ZTo4LjVpbiAxMS4w aW47DQoJbWFyZ2luOjEuMGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluO30NCmRpdi5Xb3JkU2VjdGlvbjEN Cgl7cGFnZTpXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjE7fQ0KLyogTGlzdCBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KQGxpc3QgbDAN Cgl7bXNvLWxpc3QtaWQ6MTAwNjY0MDc1MDsNCgltc28tbGlzdC10eXBlOmh5YnJpZDsNCgltc28t bGlzdC10ZW1wbGF0ZS1pZHM6LTIwOTMwNjMxNDYgLTIxNDczMzEwNjggNjc2OTg2OTEgNjc2OTg2 OTMgNjc2OTg2ODkgNjc2OTg2OTEgNjc2OTg2OTMgNjc2OTg2ODkgNjc2OTg2OTEgNjc2OTg2OTM7 fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWwxDQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1zdGFydC1hdDowOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1u dW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvg5g7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRh Yi1zdG9wOm5vbmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5k ZW50Oi0uMjVpbjsNCgltc28tYW5zaS1mb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5Oldp bmdkaW5nczsNCgltc28tZmFyZWFzdC1mb250LWZhbWlseToiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIjsNCglt c28tYmlkaS1mb250LWZhbWlseTpDYWxpYnJpOw0KCW1zby1hbnNpLWZvbnQtd2VpZ2h0OmJvbGQ7 fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWwyDQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCglt c28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDpvOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10YWItc3RvcDpub25lOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1u dW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IkNvdXJpZXIgTmV3Ijt9DQpAbGlzdCBsMDpsZXZlbDMNCgl7bXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1mb3Jt YXQ6YnVsbGV0Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10ZXh0Ou+CpzsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6bm9u ZTsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LS4yNWlu Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OldpbmdkaW5nczt9DQpAbGlzdCBsMDpsZXZlbDQNCgl7bXNvLWxldmVs LW51bWJlci1mb3JtYXQ6YnVsbGV0Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10ZXh0Ou+CtzsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwt dGFiLXN0b3A6bm9uZTsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1p bmRlbnQ6LS4yNWluOw0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlN5bWJvbDt9DQpAbGlzdCBsMDpsZXZlbDUNCgl7 bXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1mb3JtYXQ6YnVsbGV0Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10ZXh0Om87DQoJbXNv LWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOm5vbmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0K CXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0uMjVpbjsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ291cmllciBOZXciO30NCkBsaXN0 IGwwOmxldmVsNg0KCXttc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLWZvcm1hdDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVs LXRleHQ674KnOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10YWItc3RvcDpub25lOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXIt cG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6V2luZ2Rp bmdzO30NCkBsaXN0IGwwOmxldmVsNw0KCXttc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLWZvcm1hdDpidWxsZXQ7 DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRleHQ674K3Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10YWItc3RvcDpub25lOw0KCW1zby1s ZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJZm9udC1m YW1pbHk6U3ltYm9sO30NCkBsaXN0IGwwOmxldmVsOA0KCXttc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLWZvcm1h dDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRleHQ6bzsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6bm9uZTsN Cgltc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LS4yNWluOw0K CWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyI7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWw5DQoJe21zby1sZXZl bC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVs LXRhYi1zdG9wOm5vbmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQt aW5kZW50Oi0uMjVpbjsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0Kb2wNCgl7bWFyZ2luLWJv dHRvbTowaW47fQ0KdWwNCgl7bWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTowaW47fQ0KLS0+PC9zdHlsZT4NCjwvaGVh ZD4NCjxib2R5IGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBsaW5rPSJibHVlIiB2bGluaz0icHVycGxlIj4NCjxkaXYg Y2xhc3M9IldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMSI+DQo8dWwgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi10b3A6MGluIiB0eXBlPSJk aXNjIj4NCjxsaSBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTGlzdFBhcmFncmFwaCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjBp bjttc28tbGlzdDpsMCBsZXZlbDEgbGZvMSI+RmFpciBlbm91Z2guIElzIHRoaXMgaW4gR2l0aHVi PyBJIGNhbiBwcm92aWRlIGEgc2tldGNoeSBQUi48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvbGk+PC91bD4NCjxwIGNs YXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1h bCI+QW5kIHRoZSByYXRpb25hbGUsIG9idmlvdXNseS4mbmJzcDsgQWx0aG91Z2ggdGhhdCBjYW4g KHByb2JhYmx5IHNob3VsZCkgYmUgUFIgbWV0YWRhdGEuPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4N CjwvYm9keT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCg== --_000_FFBE3FE119504A6F86BA3462B7F1B624akamaicom_-- From nobody Tue May 29 21:10:08 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F04C12F28B for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 21:10:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 u3IC6pMRAq23 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 21:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ot0-x22f.google.com (mail-ot0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22f]) (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 55DB612F268 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 21:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id y10-v6so19582166otg.10 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 21:10:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=sv0PKdvwq1qKIISKxHTGaOGuY6RzIeAsxAJdlc49jFY=; b=ytab0C64EqTnpP3ZrDMEAOVgj9KMaFvG7WQNq9ACk/6SSrjCEvUTnc4Jf+BZWZ0OF1 xF1OBCCtPf3oUS9TEk03JdZ9xgtgOACmauCBSificaJucaPnDegNYOqu4lqyVMO+6PtS /SEjBo76SEC1ifbyunvgsQ+bU2gQy3KXopJDwjTaw1RPDOr4Znmefm8pgI/isN4Z0Zz4 UbWQyneh7/Z7d0RTBpTbuw45aGxrDO5ffCsNHxrePSiAQiFrUeK3g1UzhEHnptnhTONZ k3Ayr3PFfjcesvICJoFbNnfmiLle5oD4g3cdSgwH14YXo0sNc8KgZJ5tgPL+w2G24cIV pvLg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sv0PKdvwq1qKIISKxHTGaOGuY6RzIeAsxAJdlc49jFY=; b=G/C7+Tym86tdmInRh0WTkPQWhjw6Kw6G0D37tfA9x3gs+ef6KJTVMQuMJ2KiGblsNc 1KUFSfy8+5kW9Buj4O+/JtdQQsp8bb+9uOku6h8NOdCsD4J/GAboihJDmcg+Fx1gzqLH wxiEFUzlvkJWne7co2gRZwSLCdW5SR/mElsHjhkeqmX5nLOgs879+LSKPB6Ckla/aHF7 XgzWTpiSzoTnzguBEfd9Sn7dhelTFah5dqk2mLckkku3eTj69Gplt0EVuA8ROgxwz96w KjyiER9hl29ZaBitnQU/ZzbavRcQ0icHRFrSnPB2J4uFlneT6Y8LhUVVuPAnZHdMM3Vt Z3mA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwfc4acguxR6UxZ9WWDA2J0a1aqHgn/nEy14MjFkVL5v+8XhMg23 okVdNLF58+zB8s+sxQEkFHqtNcUB94GHuvt5u8Cy4v8M X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKKxB+W2AFrObbiA//whfrE+sGphPtdx5uSOknEU11W0pnGSOaE5oXPOgdRw3zZVfBJ9mEBKOONg1Uz/hcmvmN0= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:224d:: with SMTP id o71-v6mr747239ota.101.1527653403658; Tue, 29 May 2018 21:10:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:ac9:66:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 29 May 2018 21:09:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1555475.KUsr8aTfev@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <3446969.zDdGGYQIsg@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <1525201687.32101.39.camel@redhat.com> <1526923646.10011.43.camel@redhat.com> <45656.1527626244@eng-mail01.juniper.net> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 21:09:23 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Salz, Rich" Cc: "Mark D. Baushke" , curdle , Simo Sorce , Hubert Kario Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000771ae6056d64867a" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Curdle] AD Review of draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2-05 X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 04:10:07 -0000 --000000000000771ae6056d64867a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Salz, Rich < rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > - Fair enough. Is this in Github? I can provide a sketchy PR. > > > > And the rationale, obviously. Although that can (probably should) be PR > metadata. > The rationale is in my review, but I'm happy to cut and paste from that. -Ekr > _______________________________________________ > Curdle mailing list > Curdle@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/curdle > > --000000000000771ae6056d64867a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Salz, Rich <rsalz= =3D40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
  • Fair enough. Is this in Github? I can provide a sketchy PR.

=C2=A0

And the rationale, obviously.=C2=A0 Although = that can (probably should) be PR metadata.


The rationale is in my review, but I'm happy to cut and= paste from that.

-Ekr

=


_______________________________________________
Curdle mailing list
Curdle@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/curdle

--000000000000771ae6056d64867a-- From nobody Wed May 30 03:25:31 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF4912EC11 for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 03:25:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 0zE-hlsiWw10 for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 03:25:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4975612EBC2 for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 03:25:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F998401EF11; Wed, 30 May 2018 10:25:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pintsize.usersys.redhat.com (unknown [10.43.21.250]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E11E2026DEF; Wed, 30 May 2018 10:25:25 +0000 (UTC) From: Hubert Kario To: Eric Rescorla Cc: Simo Sorce , curdle Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 12:25:19 +0200 Message-ID: <34725207.E0R9U7BB6Z@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1526923646.10011.43.camel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2330529.W6MQr13DQD"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.4 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.5]); Wed, 30 May 2018 10:25:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.5]); Wed, 30 May 2018 10:25:26 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'10.11.54.4' DOMAIN:'int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com' HELO:'smtp.corp.redhat.com' FROM:'hkario@redhat.com' RCPT:'' Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Curdle] AD Review of draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2-05 X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 10:25:29 -0000 --nextPart2330529.W6MQr13DQD Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tuesday, 29 May 2018 21:27:34 CEST Eric Rescorla wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 14:12 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > These changes look fine, though they only address some of my comments. > >=20 > > Just for clarity, is the change to describe the whole DH exchange in > > one place what you see missing ? Is that a deal breaker ? > > Anything else ? >=20 > That and the repeated text that is the same for each group. the fix for repeated text about groups is already merged to master, for ECD= HE:=20 https://github.com/simo5/ietf/blob/eb03480d5c49e7340302e4974435f382ba26a911/ draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2.xml#L537-L553 and for FFDHE: https://github.com/simo5/ietf/blob/eb03480d5c49e7340302e4974435f382ba26a911/ draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2.xml#L148-L164 > I'm not sure it's a dealbreaker, but it's a real point of concern for me. > Is there > strong WG consensus to retain the current structure, or is this just what > happens > to be there. >=20 > -Ekr >=20 > > Simo. > >=20 > > > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 12:55 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Hubert Kario > > > >=20 > > > > wrote: > > > > > > I think you're misunderstanding me. My point is that there are > >=20 > > already > >=20 > > > > > > > documents > > > > > > > which describe how to generate the private and public keys for > >=20 > > EC. > >=20 > > > > You > > > >=20 > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > be referring to them, not recapitulating their contents here. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > proposed in https://github.com/simo5/ietf/pull/24 > > > > >=20 > > > > > I will review this. > > > >=20 > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > did you have time to look at this ? > > > > Or do you prefer to get a new draft with these changes ? > > > >=20 > > > > Simo. =2D-=20 Regards, Hubert Kario Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team Web: www.cz.redhat.com Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purky=C5=88ova 115, 612 00 Brno, Czech Republic --nextPart2330529.W6MQr13DQD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEYeeuxEU+3unL/K+dkqjRuAHS9fUFAlsOfBAACgkQkqjRuAHS 9fVahQ/+Ou04Mi9AuI8ptJmKh0/elbWBHO8oP/2nnTLTVfSeC3Am1DfL+KfEZWx5 qoguvVo3JP3ISJ6YIGALMBBYHir63HD0aQuNadpG4Wwig8//zdjWsqC0jO/wJyPq 1dQq7SBSq2fATCzIarhyMRu5/45PzZhxo+AbDGoZYZWruBGlqiUsLselpmxtz/Pp MWRKUVZrBHezhDmxzx+T/ikvpCruXmQ+OHaVRRHH8n+tsyimPFjjpx1wQN56T3cI 6eUxBlbI1cmWE2y3ac5cdOxlWvB+ovqLCvKBhY9Pm2BD7UfGKXxQ39YJNrqGLMtR wj66zG9ut4LwguTZg9TvLhi+IiD6ZacR+8F70Rs+ervcMzoAuk3cw/jif59D/vHv oyC1MPXkRwDNfZSgBiCwgElmlxiP4lbB9q9kykIgLCzVfFdse5as4vcxhw8tRQi1 oFfV6p0jwVO94H0CRgRH+utQR2IYLz0S6YHo+xSuoZ0P7F646NmN/AhQ3+nhH3JF 6Bqge0/5CTV9lap4qDXRItNItDWRc6daNaIsrTOdBi5aO5sFbZpxFOgotDweVXaA Quro+cU93Se+N10jT8rbVFPf545dd5/bl0GmdyTbbLJvWh9wMz3M/AAsHBI8A1uU /QFgIB5PFw1uVfkxkwsw/rfZgR7JCia7qZcgjH+98thxMFCICLM= =tRFg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2330529.W6MQr13DQD-- From nobody Wed May 30 05:35:18 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB88812DA4D for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 05:35:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 wB5fTRmuD8Y5 for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 05:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF4BA12DA21 for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 05:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 319F5126F2F; Wed, 30 May 2018 12:35:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ovpn-117-5.phx2.redhat.com (ovpn-117-5.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.117.5]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A8AB5C20C; Wed, 30 May 2018 12:35:13 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1527683712.25240.42.camel@redhat.com> From: Simo Sorce To: Hubert Kario , Eric Rescorla Cc: curdle Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 08:35:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <34725207.E0R9U7BB6Z@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> References: <1526923646.10011.43.camel@redhat.com> <34725207.E0R9U7BB6Z@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Wed, 30 May 2018 12:35:14 +0000 (UTC) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Curdle] AD Review of draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2-05 X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 12:35:17 -0000 On Wed, 2018-05-30 at 12:25 +0200, Hubert Kario wrote: > On Tuesday, 29 May 2018 21:27:34 CEST Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 14:12 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > These changes look fine, though they only address some of my comments. > > > > > > Just for clarity, is the change to describe the whole DH exchange in > > > one place what you see missing ? Is that a deal breaker ? > > > Anything else ? > > > > That and the repeated text that is the same for each group. > > the fix for repeated text about groups is already merged to master, for ECDHE: > https://github.com/simo5/ietf/blob/eb03480d5c49e7340302e4974435f382ba26a911/ > draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2.xml#L537-L553 > and for FFDHE: > https://github.com/simo5/ietf/blob/eb03480d5c49e7340302e4974435f382ba26a911/ > draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2.xml#L148-L164 Thanks Hubert. Eric, it be nice if you could give guidance on how you would like to see the DH exchange explanation changed, assuming that's the only thing of concern left for you, feel free to point out anything else as well. If you prefer to have a new draft submitted, with the changes above, as a baseline for further discussion, I can submit one. Simo. From nobody Wed May 30 06:24:56 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB7812E87F for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 06:24:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.609 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 Nmsj8SVc49hW for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 06:24:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x231.google.com (mail-oi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::231]) (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 E358112E878 for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 06:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x231.google.com with SMTP id c128-v6so7035330oig.11 for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 06:24:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=iSPvquFwPyEdQdFK8TJTPuXh3jLWjcaRCD7eiWejCyc=; b=J183+8rTRKRRDiTZeiKroOQM6PPUn/4BQlUJDys8BmQ0Ud6KGKiVN2q2P9W1nghjHL GMiW5ZsKrEwMAD+MDmRkM7xpcWfUZBA3jGRf5Hbd/A4PNGj/NGD94e+QYYxJd4oMq2/N GyzC8LxWgtWR/O9XEkXfb/Up1OIer0aCILy/FVmFCb709UhH6Z07DOMCgYQR9WwDTUq4 weGIHK/iw88xsOvM0OeqlcIE894GOrPh7FEfCnENDgeqjoEdoAEFTXGVTGsXpFVj2oY0 2j1qiQqwx+79XT+4aCIWjyOMpLuLRaMj3BG4yLTPV78SDGezckDg77LmNwPEb6nUvi9Y s93g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iSPvquFwPyEdQdFK8TJTPuXh3jLWjcaRCD7eiWejCyc=; b=SRIah7izoXh8860/oIt+ov3vkl1LGw2CKU4KXK85DeooyqhRzICCpHA7oAbt+t/c7n yQGG1poaC0QctlpObi4vev3zIovvhrNkxw93XfKaAG06RjR2uIjyGwBfXEwc1hkkyjdT lVjyt5rkDEOHyr2jPPWzLX1yn/QX610B51gu28YyrmoVnNH7pX046whyTNElFEVFGh+G /v2VOt9pVSNu+jqRByheL1IipFUc2GUG12WCVoQKLig6GEP5+3w4jMH1Jqif7ESwL2HZ pKshygOSZPJbmnO3ebkGjRI0pc56mxEk3EQjPDi493p2Z+TYjwPr96nZ9f0Uv1PQcSLC inbg== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E224U7Rari/QB4oODNBxpN+lG7MXPFWUiRJ7nzS5ur74pvLKcTN 1iUUI9Zexszp85CINCX3fyjZqlgUw5MxzipwwaFBfQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKKnDnf7hqYkMNiAysgBp2Tk907uxQjSxD0xS+/te7hDu0+ZgN8TzejX21O0MOCgW++XUM/NwmZYy/NhZVMUmU0= X-Received: by 2002:aca:1c3:: with SMTP id 186-v6mr1536255oib.174.1527686691280; Wed, 30 May 2018 06:24:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:ac9:66:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 30 May 2018 06:24:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1527683712.25240.42.camel@redhat.com> References: <1526923646.10011.43.camel@redhat.com> <34725207.E0R9U7BB6Z@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <1527683712.25240.42.camel@redhat.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 06:24:10 -0700 Message-ID: To: Simo Sorce Cc: Hubert Kario , curdle Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008fecc7056d6c468f" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Curdle] AD Review of draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2-05 X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 13:24:55 -0000 --0000000000008fecc7056d6c468f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sure. I was thinking something like this 5.1. 5.1.1. Generic Procedures - Generating a DH ephemeral - Verifying the peer's ephemeral - Computing the shared key - Verifying the output - Computing the key hash and MIC 5.1.2. GSS Key Exchange Steps Client calls GSS_Init_sec_context()... [5.1.1 step 2] Server verifies Q_C and calls GSS_Accept_sec_context [5.1.1, step 4] Server generates ephemeral and computes the shared key [reduced 5.1.1 step 5] Server call to GSS_Accept_sec_context [5.1.1 step 6] Client verifies Q_S and computes the shared key [5.1.1 step 7++] Client calls GSS_VErifyMIC [5.1.1. step 8] It's hard for me to see if you caught everything else. If you want to submit a new draft, I can take a look, either before or after this change. -Ekr On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Wed, 2018-05-30 at 12:25 +0200, Hubert Kario wrote: > > On Tuesday, 29 May 2018 21:27:34 CEST Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Simo Sorce > wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 14:12 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > These changes look fine, though they only address some of my > comments. > > > > > > > > Just for clarity, is the change to describe the whole DH exchange in > > > > one place what you see missing ? Is that a deal breaker ? > > > > Anything else ? > > > > > > That and the repeated text that is the same for each group. > > > > the fix for repeated text about groups is already merged to master, for > ECDHE: > > https://github.com/simo5/ietf/blob/eb03480d5c49e7340302e4974435f3 > 82ba26a911/ > > draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2.xml#L537-L553 > > and for FFDHE: > > https://github.com/simo5/ietf/blob/eb03480d5c49e7340302e4974435f3 > 82ba26a911/ > > draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2.xml#L148-L164 > > Thanks Hubert. > > Eric, > it be nice if you could give guidance on how you would like to see the > DH exchange explanation changed, assuming that's the only thing of > concern left for you, feel free to point out anything else as well. > > If you prefer to have a new draft submitted, with the changes above, as > a baseline for further discussion, I can submit one. > > Simo. > --0000000000008fecc7056d6c468f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sure. I was thinking something like this

5.1.
5.= 1.1. Generic Procedures
- Generating a DH ephemeral
- Verifying the p= eer's ephemeral
- Computing the shared key
- Verifying the output=
- Computing the key hash and MIC

5.1.2. GSS Key Exchange StepsClient calls GSS_Init_sec_context()... [5.1.1 step 2]
Server verifies = Q_C and calls GSS_Accept_sec_context [5.1.1, step 4]
Server generates ep= hemeral and computes the shared key [reduced 5.1.1 step 5]
Server call t= o GSS_Accept_sec_context [5.1.1 step 6]
Client verifies Q_S and computes= the shared key [5.1.1 step 7++]
Client calls GSS_VErifyMIC [5.1.1. step= 8]

It's hard for me to see if you caught everything else. If yo= u want to
submit a new draft, I can take a look, either before or after = this
change.

-Ekr






On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Si= mo Sorce <ssorce@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2018-05-30 at 12:25 +0200, Hubert Kario= wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 May 2018 21:27:34 CEST Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Simo Sorce <ssorce@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 14:12 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > > > These changes look fine, though they only address some = of my comments.
> > >
> > > Just for clarity, is the change to describe the whole DH exc= hange in
> > > one place what you see missing ? Is that a deal breaker ? > > > Anything else ?
> >
> > That and the repeated text that is the same for each group.
>
> the fix for repeated text about groups is already merged to master, fo= r ECDHE:
> https://github.com/= simo5/ietf/blob/eb03480d5c49e7340302e4974435f382ba26a911/
> draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2.xml#L537-L553
> and for FFDHE:
> https://github.com/= simo5/ietf/blob/eb03480d5c49e7340302e4974435f382ba26a911/
> draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2.xml#L148-L164

Thanks Hubert.

Eric,
it be nice if you could give guidance on how you would like to see the
DH exchange explanation changed, assuming that's the only thing of
concern left for you, feel free to point out anything else as well.

If you prefer to have a new draft submitted, with the changes above, as
a baseline for further discussion, I can submit one.

Simo.

--0000000000008fecc7056d6c468f-- From nobody Wed May 30 07:24:58 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C0B812DB71 for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 07:24:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 utHHT-V6dqE9 for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 07:24:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1697F12DA04 for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 07:24:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B69A2DACE7; Wed, 30 May 2018 14:24:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ovpn-117-5.phx2.redhat.com (ovpn-117-5.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.117.5]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDBCD608EF; Wed, 30 May 2018 14:24:52 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1527690292.25240.46.camel@redhat.com> From: Simo Sorce To: Eric Rescorla Cc: Hubert Kario , curdle Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 10:24:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <1526923646.10011.43.camel@redhat.com> <34725207.E0R9U7BB6Z@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <1527683712.25240.42.camel@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Wed, 30 May 2018 14:24:53 +0000 (UTC) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Curdle] AD Review of draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2-05 X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 14:24:56 -0000 On Wed, 2018-05-30 at 06:24 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > Sure. I was thinking something like this > > 5.1. > 5.1.1. Generic Procedures > - Generating a DH ephemeral > - Verifying the peer's ephemeral > - Computing the shared key > - Verifying the output > - Computing the key hash and MIC > > 5.1.2. GSS Key Exchange Steps > Client calls GSS_Init_sec_context()... [5.1.1 step 2] > Server verifies Q_C and calls GSS_Accept_sec_context [5.1.1, step 4] > Server generates ephemeral and computes the shared key [reduced 5.1.1 step > 5] > Server call to GSS_Accept_sec_context [5.1.1 step 6] > Client verifies Q_S and computes the shared key [5.1.1 step 7++] > Client calls GSS_VErifyMIC [5.1.1. step 8] > > It's hard for me to see if you caught everything else. If you want to > submit a new draft, I can take a look, either before or after this > change. Ok, I guess will try to get the change above in first; to cut on draft churn. in the meanwhile if you want to see the current text we are working on it is available here[1], with commit history (so you can diff [2] for the previous draft [3] if you wish). Simo. [1] https://github.com/simo5/ietf/blob/master/draft-ietf-curdle-gss-key ex-sha2.xml [2] https://github.com/simo5/ietf/compare/cbb10832e376e3abab3164f9bb7d2 e759c2bea0b...6057b9920920640f8f193160d00150890adc222b [3] https://github.com/simo5/ietf/blob/cbb10832e376e3abab3164f9bb7d2e75 9c2bea0b/draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2.xml > -Ekr > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > On Wed, 2018-05-30 at 12:25 +0200, Hubert Kario wrote: > > > On Tuesday, 29 May 2018 21:27:34 CEST Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Simo Sorce > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 14:12 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > These changes look fine, though they only address some of my > > > > comments. > > > > > > > > > > Just for clarity, is the change to describe the whole DH exchange in > > > > > one place what you see missing ? Is that a deal breaker ? > > > > > Anything else ? > > > > > > > > That and the repeated text that is the same for each group. > > > > > > the fix for repeated text about groups is already merged to master, for > > > > ECDHE: > > > https://github.com/simo5/ietf/blob/eb03480d5c49e7340302e4974435f3 > > > > 82ba26a911/ > > > draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2.xml#L537-L553 > > > and for FFDHE: > > > https://github.com/simo5/ietf/blob/eb03480d5c49e7340302e4974435f3 > > > > 82ba26a911/ > > > draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2.xml#L148-L164 > > > > Thanks Hubert. > > > > Eric, > > it be nice if you could give guidance on how you would like to see the > > DH exchange explanation changed, assuming that's the only thing of > > concern left for you, feel free to point out anything else as well. > > > > If you prefer to have a new draft submitted, with the changes above, as > > a baseline for further discussion, I can submit one. > > > > Simo. > > From nobody Wed May 30 12:18:25 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2462D12E886 for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 12:18:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.103 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 YYwCq9AI63cW for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 12:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22b.google.com (mail-lf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22b]) (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 5F67212EABD for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 12:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id u4-v6so6003455lff.3 for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 12:18:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=kLs7v8rUkkqM3TI7uKySr92yDyvshF05ar4U2PablX8=; b=VDE5nXrHkcQA4oqbS+XpdVV/xmH10xBMQb6s8neyC+Pu2zO5IVoMMVIx0b7wgEafk1 bH+Tfh53HlewJ701kbmjGTIRpwTIxR4w+9JgQ1Kot9hHB3WFrp5PFBKYosSEUSS3wQxx B8Q82mvnSCQUJ2PJTDWlS1z3yVW1SFAxxg1NNLKE75m++2VSyutw3MgWEg9q7ZvF3lUo ZMewTBXalTLxZLf7VsXVJTJIloAU7xa7CRjhbBblS97PFQOBRilPsu4/CXhxWlr83AMm howLDej1G0bGeYkEEHcDbVtq4RgbKLkfQVZ8PyJcIa+DzW1R2EC+uoFLjRw4ZhfGJTM+ 1b2w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=kLs7v8rUkkqM3TI7uKySr92yDyvshF05ar4U2PablX8=; b=ppTGm044P059seqA1Yxv14Zhvsn+ty6eVf1YVy6yrr1q5XOZLDVNUortDq2trlEgpc f7ZxSK6X+Fnf7DG8fL52ROacx1w63+t8uStJWrnhkXppoe68K7bvMrfSp+hTy+HK0bL2 49ywDr6+TzeNRxvea46yzVXEciPuidxS6A1LjPvCuFsWp9bnayLrbARopNmKV5RlUfXy sKqdjHxmezZcz5YVueJUVSk+oWsUkbmTy8NJTBCaRRz7ZOWsBkLYIRHFC6FBIXH/SK9q EF31f0eFyNHRfjoLpO5xgNsVFoRyqHq2kljxlHXNSF2+Vu3Zevrw+fgmlFiid7c6IEr6 Fn6A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPweU7Q4TM+Ne4uHnhU512UN8Ry8iKVHYPk5+CERa6Dsy1kPiW/ab r8makEL/uIWVHzVd0mqXHuKNOoxxkWNjgLc8NW3EAA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKIpSxmfrEtfXQyUkVPflv0GeXrJcY76nsvT0by+Ka7kzBhSuToOdgMWGUKQLkHSZ3dgR+AfC50+zMT3yIZ4SI0= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9cd8:: with SMTP id g24-v6mr3081979ljj.141.1527707893541; Wed, 30 May 2018 12:18:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mglt.ietf@gmail.com Received: by 2002:a2e:510a:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 30 May 2018 12:18:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Daniel Migault Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 15:18:12 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: asKs2kS89TAU2PDi3MDjHGZYP9Y Message-ID: To: curdle Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000050adf9056d713601" Archived-At: Subject: [Curdle] Fwd: [hackathon] Linux Networking Conference @Montreal July 11-13 X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 19:18:23 -0000 --00000000000050adf9056d713601 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I am sharing with you the venue of the Linux Networking Conference @Montreal July 11-13. Hope some of us will be able to attend! Register by June 1 to be in early bird mode and feel free to forward! Yours, Daniel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Sun, May 27, 2018 at 12:15 PM Subject: [hackathon] Linux Networking Conference @Montreal July 11-13 To: hackathon@ietf.org This may be of interest to devs and ops in particular because a lot of IETF related protocols are involved (transport, routing, ipsec etc). The Linux netdev conference 0x12 will take place on July 11-13 in Montreal right before the IETF July 14 =E2=80=93 20. https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/ Location is walking distance to IETF location. Sessions still being accepted, for current list: https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/accepted-sessions.html More exciting stuff coming. Registration is still in early bird mode (20% off) until June 1st. https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/registration.html cheers, jamal _______________________________________________ hackathon mailing list hackathon@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hackathon --00000000000050adf9056d713601 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

I am sharing with y= ou the venue of the Linux Networking Conference @Montreal July 11-13. Hope = some of us will be able to attend!

Register by Jun= e 1 to be in early bird mode and feel free to forward!

Yours,
Daniel
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com>
Date: Sun, May 27, 2018 at= 12:15 PM
Subject: [hackathon] Linux Networking Conference @Montreal Jul= y 11-13
To: hackathon@ietf.org=


This may be of interest to devs and ops in particular
because a lot of IETF related protocols are involved
(transport, routing, ipsec etc).

The Linux netdev conference 0x12 will take place on
July 11-13 in Montreal right before the IETF=C2=A0 July 14 =E2=80=93 20. https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/

Location is walking distance to IETF location.

Sessions still being accepted, for current list:
https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/accepted-= sessions.html
More exciting stuff coming.

Registration is still in early bird mode (20% off) until June 1st.
https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/registration.h= tml

cheers,
jamal

_______________________________________________
hackathon mailing list
hackathon@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hackathon<= /a>

--00000000000050adf9056d713601--