[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cfrg
Subject:    Re: [CFRG] [EXT] Re:  DAE for HPKE, was Re: I-D Action: draft-irtf-cfrg-dnhpke-02.txt
From:       "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri () ll ! mit ! edu>
Date:       2023-10-03 17:35:21
Message-ID: 121F6C35-7E6D-4824-ACF6-5507944E843D () ll ! mit ! edu
[Download RAW message or body]

I strongly suggest adding/allowing non-IND-CCA2 AEAD symmetric ciphers. Annotating \
the provided guarantees accordingly.

-- 
V/R,
Uri
 

On 10/3/23, 12:15, "CFRG on behalf of Dan Harkins" <cfrg-bounces@irtf.org on \
behalf of dharkins@lounge.org> wrote:

    !-------------------------------------------------------------------|
      This Message Is From an External Sender
      This message came from outside the Laboratory.
    |-------------------------------------------------------------------!


       Hi Watson,

    On 10/2/23 4:35 PM, Watson Ladd wrote:
    >>    You say the requirement is quite clear. Given the discussion around the
    >> new (for -10) requirement when it appeared, it is not clear.
    > I don't think the editorial history is relevant. The plain text of the
    > RFC in section 9.4 is clear, so looking at the history doesn't come
    > in. Could this be a misrepresentation of consensus? Sure: people make
    > mistakes, RGLC isn't perfect. But the route forward is IMHO that you
    > can't get an early assignment, but when the draft is published that's
    > RG consensus to modify the requirement on 9.4, and maybe add some text
    > to explain what experts should do going forward and tag with
    > appropriate update headers. That shouldn't be too bad if we can get
    > our ducks in a row proceedurewise.

       That's a great suggestion, RG consensus on the matter would be with
    the draft not this separate email thread. But given the exchange between
    Ilari and Orie today I'm sort of thinking to approach this as adding
    a separate registry for DAE cipher modes. That way the IND-CCA2 guarantee
    remains for AEADs and my I-D can take advantage of the rest of HPKE,
    including the now assigned compact representation KEMs.

       If anyone has any ideas on how to finesse this I'd like to hear them,
    either privately or on the list. Also, if someone thinks that a separate
    DAE registry is NOT the way to go and they would be opposed, I'd like to
    hear that too. In any event, I'll produce another version presently.

       regards,

       Dan.

    -- 
    "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
    escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

    _______________________________________________
    CFRG mailing list
    CFRG@irtf.org
    https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg


["smime.p7s" (application/pkcs7-signature)]

_______________________________________________
CFRG mailing list
CFRG@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg

--===============6149856326430763559==--


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]