Subject: [Cfrg] What are the goals of the AEAD bakeoff?

From: Watson Ladd <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 15:00:52 -0400

Unlike PAKE, where a multitude of designs all claimed to have achieved
the same security and usability goals, the goals of this competition
seem multifaceted and in tension. On the one side is a desire for
larger encrypted data volumes, either via big blocks or beyond
birthday techniques. Evaluating a big-block construction is likely to
involve substantial symmetric cryptanalysis knowledge.

On the other is a demand for key-committing schemes and nonce hiding
schemes. Both of these are likely to have efficiency costs compared to
potentially one-pass big block (or tweaked) schemes.

I don't think it makes sense to have a competition. I think it makes
sense to articulate the problems and present them to get people
interested in proposing designs/understanding the tradeoffs, and then
maybe have a competition once that is clearer.

Sincerely,
Watson

---

From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 20:31:13 +0000

I concur with Watson. Different use cases need different "winners".

On 6/21/20, 15:01, "Cfrg on behalf of Watson Ladd" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    Sincerely,
    Watson

    _______________________________________________
    Cfrg mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg

---

From: Paul Grubbs <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 12:02:47 -0400

I agree that there are a lot of potentially important goals, and that more
clarity is needed before choosing design targets. This seems like a good
use case for a multi-round competition: in the first round, people can
propose design goals, then the CFRG can select a few goals for which people
propose concrete schemes in subsequent rounds.

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 4:31 PM Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 6/21/20, 15:01, "Cfrg on behalf of Watson Ladd" <[email-masked]
> on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Dmitry Belyavsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 19:04:58 +0300

Do we really need competition instead of classification?

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 7:03 PM Paul Grubbs <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> On 6/21/20, 15:01, "Cfrg on behalf of Watson Ladd" <
>> cfrg-bounces@irtf..org <[email-masked]> on behalf of
>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>

-- 
SY, Dmitry Belyavsky

---

From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 16:33:20 +0000

IMHO, no we don’t.

I agree that there are a lot of potentially important goals, and that more clarity is needed before choosing design targets. This seems like a good use case for a multi-round competition: in the first round, people can propose design goals, then the CFRG can select a few goals for which people propose concrete schemes in subsequent rounds. 

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 4:31 PM Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <[email-masked]> wrote:

On 6/21/20, 15:01, "Cfrg on behalf of Watson Ladd" <cfrg-bounces@irtf..org on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    Sincerely,
    Watson

 

-- 

SY, Dmitry Belyavsky