Subject: Re: Consensus call was Re: Comments on draft-ietf-kitten-krb5-gssapi-prf-03.txt

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 16:30:23 -0400

>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]> writes:

    Jeffrey> Actually, the question I raised was on the krb5 prf draft
    Jeffrey> since that is where the current text is located.  I would
    Jeffrey> like a consensus call on the following questions.

    Jeffrey> (1) Add this text to the security considerations section
    Jeffrey> of the general prf draft:

    Jeffrey> Pseudorandom functions by their nature are capable of
    Jeffrey> producing only limited amounts of cryptographically
    Jeffrey> secure output. The exact amount of output that one can
    Jeffrey> safely use, unfortunately varies from one PRF to another
    Jeffrey> (which prevents us from recommending specific
    Jeffrey> numbers). Because of this, we recommend that unless you
    Jeffrey> really know what you are doing (i.e. you are a
    Jeffrey> cryptographer and are qualified to pass judgement on
    Jeffrey> cryptographic functions in areas of period, presence of
    Jeffrey> short cycles, etc), you limit the amount of the PRF
    Jeffrey> output used to the necessary minimum.

I'm willing to live with this text although it's not great.  I don't
have improvements to offer.  The spirit behind the text is fine.

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 16:41:12 -0500

Sam> I'm willing to live with this text although it's not great.  I
Sam> don't have improvements to offer.  The spirit behind the text is
Sam> fine.

How about pointing out that the lack of useful APIs for inquiring about
cryptographic QoPs or specification of policies on the same means that
pplications that need to make more than nominal use of
GSS_Pseudo_random() should take extra care?

Nico
--

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 19:15:23 -0400

>>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]> writes:

    Sam> I'm willing to live with this text although it's not great.
    Sam> I don't have improvements to offer.  The spirit behind the
    Sam> text is fine.

    Nicolas> How about pointing out that the lack of useful APIs for
    Nicolas> inquiring about cryptographic QoPs or specification of
    Nicolas> policies on the same means that pplications that need to
    Nicolas> make more than nominal use of GSS_Pseudo_random() should
    Nicolas> take extra care?

I'd actually like to stay away from discussion of APIs. m I honestly
believe that for any mechanism we are likely to standardize and for
any use of PRF we are likely to standardize there isn't that big of a
concern beyond the key lifetime concern we're already discussing
unrealted to PRF.

So mentioning APIs as a way to find out whether what you are doing is
OK is fine but mentioning APIsas a requirement seems unnecessary.

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 18:17:27 -0500

> OK is fine but mentioning APIsas a requirement seems unnecessary.

Ok, so we should stick with the text you agreed to earlier.  I don't
know how to improve it.

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:20:10 -0500

On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 11:03:02AM -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> Actually, the question I raised was on the krb5 prf draft since that is
> where the current text is located.  I would like a consensus call on the
> following questions.

What's the consensus?

---

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:01:57 -0700

>>where the current text is located.  I would like a consensus call on the

The consensus is that we have text which those who have expressed an
opinion are will to swallow but that no one likes.

If no one can come up with alternative text by the end of today, I will
ask you to submit a new draft with the agreed to text so that we can
issue the working group last call.

Jeffrey Altman

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:01:45 -0500

> issue the working group last call.

I've updated the I-Ds accordingly, and only as proposed, and submitted
new (-04) versions.

Please begin WGLC at your earliest convenience.

Thanks,

Nico
--