Subject: [Cfrg] CFRG minutes for IETF 89 meeting

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 08:30:44 -0700

Hello,

There is message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg04308.html about 
a tentative agenda for a CFRG meeting at IETF 89.  I could not find 
any minutes for that meeting.  Was there a CFRG meeting, and if so, 
where can I find the minutes of that meeting?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: David McGrew <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 14:10:25 -0400

All of the meeting materials, including the minutes, are online at

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/89/materials.html#irtf

David

On 04/09/2014 11:30 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 11:38:01 -0700

>https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/89/materials.html#irtf

Thanks.  I did look there before I asked.

There isn't much information in the minutes.  For example:

  New Elliptic Curve Crypto
    Status and DISCUSSION of non-standard curves  (15 min)

    Edwards curves - 30% in favor, 60% need to learn more about it
    before coming to decision

    Many: it would be a good idea to have an interim meeting.

    Kenny: invite DJB and Tanja Lange

    David: good idea

    Paul: *focus* in interim meeting (solve the important problems)

    allow prep and write statements/drafts"

does not contain any information about the discussion about Edwards curves.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Watson Ladd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 18:45:43 -0700

> does not contain any information about the discussion about Edwards curves.

I particularly like "Joe Salowey: TLS should not be using stream
cipher." in a discussion of ChaCha20+Poly1305. Was this a matter of
not understanding what ChaCha20+Poly1305 is, a deep technical point
about how TLS works (and how somehow it worked with RC4), or something
else entirely?

What were the concerns raised about Edwards curves? Were they "why is
this secure?" (A: isogeny to Weierstrass over a quadratic extension
always exists for any Weierstrass curve) or technical issues relating
to pont encodings? As the author of the primary draft I can't make use
of these minutes to improve it or address concerns. Was "why do we
need this?" a question? (A: because your code is wrong). What were the
people in favor of? Their existence? Using them in protocols? Adopting
a draft?

Of the four questions on the slides relating to my draft, I don't see
clear answers as to the sense of the room on any of them. I would very
much appreciate more detail, perhaps a report, from someone who was
there.

Sincerely,
Watson Ladd

-- 
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither  Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:17:13 +0300

> about how TLS works (and how somehow it worked with RC4), or something

There was a feeling in the room that ChaCha20 was not really a stream cipher like RC4, but more like a block cipher in counter mode (with a 512-bit block size).
In particular, there’s no long-lived state between invocation that is likely to lead to bias in the key stream, such as there is in RC4

HTH

Yoav

---

From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 06:51:20 +0000

> about how TLS works (and how somehow it worked with RC4), or something

[Joe] If I recall correctly, this comment was about using ChaCha20+Poly1305 as a AEAD cipher type within TLS instead of a Stream Cipher type within TLS.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 00:07:43 -0700

Hi Watson,
>much appreciate more detail, perhaps a report, from someone who was

The was a message from David McGrew (not sure if was the view of the 
Chair) which I consider as positive (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg04238.html 
).  Quoting the first sentence:

   "it is healthy to have a discussion on what CFRG and IETF can do differently
    to improve security and privacy in the Internet."

In my opinion minutes are informative if they provide the reader with 
clear answers, for example, the points that led to the sense of the 
room.   Part of the minutes is as follows:

   "30% in favor, 60% need to learn more about it before coming to decision"

That looks like there was a vote.  The minutes does not provide 
sufficient details for the reader to know who was raising points in 
favor or who expressed the wish to learn more.

I went to read the minutes because of the difficulty mentioned 
message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87189.html  I 
received from some of the people writing the code.  It wasn't positive.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:12:13 +0000

On 2014-4-9, at 20:38, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> There isn't much information in the minutes.

Group minutes are only as good as the volunteers that take them. If folks feel dissatisfied with the minutes, please volunteer to take better ones next time.

(If you want to follow the details of the discussion, there is always the archived audio streams: http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf89/)

Lars

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 01:53:36 -0700

Hi Lars,
At 00:12 10-04-2014, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>Group minutes are only as good as the volunteers that take them. If 
>folks feel dissatisfied with the minutes, please volunteer to take 
>better ones next time.

I did not attend IETF 89.  I volunteer to take minutes when it is 
possible for me to do so (for example see 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-spfbis ).

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Rene Struik <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:31:47 -0400

2014-03-28 	04 	Watson Ladd 	New version 
available:draft-ladd-safecurves-04.txt 
<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ladd-safecurves-04.txt>(diff from 
previous 
<http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ladd-safecurves-03&url2=draft-ladd-safecurves-04>) 

2014-01-15 	03 	Watson Ladd 	New version 
available:draft-ladd-safecurves-03.txt 
<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ladd-safecurves-03.txt>(diff from 
previous 
<http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ladd-safecurves-02&url2=draft-ladd-safecurves-03>) 

2014-01-10 	02 	Watson Ladd 	New version 
available:draft-ladd-safecurves-02.txt 
<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ladd-safecurves-02.txt>(diff from 
previous 
<http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ladd-safecurves-01&url2=draft-ladd-safecurves-02>) 

2014-01-09 	01 	Watson Ladd 	New version 
available:draft-ladd-safecurves-01.txt 
<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ladd-safecurves-01.txt>(diff from 
previous 
<http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ladd-safecurves-00&url2=draft-ladd-safecurves-01>) 

2014-01-08 	00 	Watson Ladd 	New version 
available:draft-ladd-safecurves-00.txt 
<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ladd-safecurves-00.txt>

Hi Watson:

There is still a premium in being physically present at meetings 
(unfortunately, I could not make it either).

It was my understanding that you had (sort of) abandoned your earlier 
draft (which had not been updated since January 15, 2014 (prior to the 
IETF meeting in March)).

Perhaps, you could make it to the IETF meeting in Toronto in July?

Best regards, Rene

-- 
email: [email-masked] | Skype: rstruik
cell: +1 (647) 867-5658 | US: +1 (415) 690-7363