Subject: Re: [KEYPROV] Comments on DSKPP draft section 1.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:33:22 -0500

Phillip,
"Renewal" -> "Rollover":  Interestingly enough, this comment was never
raised in earlier reviews, the term "renewal" was fine for RFC 4758, and
renewal is accepted usage also for the purpose DSKPP intends it.  I
would be interested to know what others on the mailing list think of
this change in term.
 
Regarding Sec 1, your change to the wording clarifies the text.  I
observe that this wording does not mention the two variants of the
protocol (4- and 2-pass).  These were included as part of the merging
effort for readability of the doc as a whole, and the implication of not
removing them is that the readability is fine without them (a slight
contradiction).  Let me know your thoughts behind this, if you will.
 
Also, I assume you are not suggesting removing the sub-sections for the
Introduction (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, etc), which provide clarifications in
response to comments received on the mailing list in the past.  Please
confirm.
Thanks,
Andrea

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 4:48 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [KEYPROV] Comments on DSKPP draft section 1.

I have reworded sectiI am editing the DSKPP draft to try to address
Passi's comment on the readability.
 
One change in particular that I think might be necessary is to change
'Key Renewal' to 'Key Rollover'.
 
The problem I have with 'renewal' is that it implies that something is
kept the same but somehow made new. What the spec is describing is
replacing of one cryptographic key with a totally different one. That is
not renewal. If I say that I have 'renewed' my car, people are going to
think that I have replaced the worn parts and given the rest a
polishing, not that I went to the dealer and traded it in for a new one.
 
I think that the term 'rollover' is more consistent with accepted usage
and conveys the concept better. Do folk agree?

I also think that the intro is losing folk, so I have reworded it as
follows:

1.  Introduction

   While the range of problems for which symmetric key cryptography is
   the solution of choice is somewhat smaller than for public key
   cryptography, the problems it does solve, it solves exceedingly well.
   In particular, symmetric key algorithms are considerably faster than
   public key equivalents and allow for smaller key and signature sizes.

   Despite the clear advantages of employing symmetric keys as long term
   credentials or access keys in certain circumstances, it has generally
   been assumed that any protocol in which ease of key management is
   required will employ public key cryptography.  In particular it is
   assumed that only private components of public keypairs will be
   employed as long term secrets and that symmetric cryptography will
   only play a supporting role.

   This document describes the Dynamic Symmetric Key Provisioning
   Protocol (DSKPP), which provides a mechanism for provisioning
   symmetric keys that provides the same degree of flexibility and
   convenience in use as equivalent infrastructures for public keys.

   DSKPP enables provisioning of symmetric keys to a symmetric key
   cryptographic module that provides data authentication and encryption
   services to software (or firmware) applications hosted on a wide
   range of hardware devices, such as personal computers, handheld
   mobile phones, one-time password tokens, USB flash drives, tape
   drives, etc.

   DSKPP provides an open and interoperable mechanism for initializing
   and configuring symmetric keys to cryptographic modules that are
   accessible over the Internet.  The description is based on the
   information contained in RFC4758, and contains specific enhancements,
   such as User Authentication and support for the [PSKC] format for
   transmission of keying material.

Comments?
_______________________________________________
KEYPROV mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:58:48 -0800

OK lets add back another para at the end of the intro para saying
 
DSKPP has two principal protocol variations. The four pass protocol variation permits a symmetric key to be established that includes randomness contributed by both the client and the server. The two pass protocol requires only one round trip instead of two and permits a server specified key to be established.

On renewal, can keep the term, just want to make sure that the text makes it clear that this is renewal of the keying material attached to a specific key identifier, as opposed to keeping the key value constant and refreshing the meta-data.

The other subsections 1.1 ... are still in!

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Mon 11/3/2008 1:33 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [KEYPROV] Comments on DSKPP draft section 1.

Phillip,
"Renewal" -> "Rollover":  Interestingly enough, this comment was never raised in earlier reviews, the term "renewal" was fine for RFC 4758, and renewal is accepted usage also for the purpose DSKPP intends it.  I would be interested to know what others on the mailing list think of this change in term.
 
Regarding Sec 1, your change to the wording clarifies the text.  I observe that this wording does not mention the two variants of the protocol (4- and 2-pass).  These were included as part of the merging effort for readability of the doc as a whole, and the implication of not removing them is that the readability is fine without them (a slight contradiction).  Let me know your thoughts behind this, if you will.
 
Also, I assume you are not suggesting removing the sub-sections for the Introduction (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, etc), which provide clarifications in response to comments received on the mailing list in the past.  Please confirm.
Thanks,
Andrea

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 4:48 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [KEYPROV] Comments on DSKPP draft section 1.

I have reworded sectiI am editing the DSKPP draft to try to address Passi's comment on the readability.
 
One change in particular that I think might be necessary is to change 'Key Renewal' to 'Key Rollover'.
 
The problem I have with 'renewal' is that it implies that something is kept the same but somehow made new. What the spec is describing is replacing of one cryptographic key with a totally different one. That is not renewal. If I say that I have 'renewed' my car, people are going to think that I have replaced the worn parts and given the rest a polishing, not that I went to the dealer and traded it in for a new one.
 
I think that the term 'rollover' is more consistent with accepted usage and conveys the concept better. Do folk agree?

I also think that the intro is losing folk, so I have reworded it as follows:

1.  Introduction

 
Comments?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:00:22 -0500

Agree.  Will make changes accordingly.

From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:59 PM
To: Doherty, Andrea; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [KEYPROV] Comments on DSKPP draft section 1.

DSKPP has two principal protocol variations. The four pass protocol
variation permits a symmetric key to be established that includes
randomness contributed by both the client and the server. The two pass
protocol requires only one round trip instead of two and permits a
server specified key to be established.

On renewal, can keep the term, just want to make sure that the text
makes it clear that this is renewal of the keying material attached to a
specific key identifier, as opposed to keeping the key value constant
and refreshing the meta-data.

Phillip,

 

1.  Introduction

 
Comments?