Subject: [Openpgp-dt] 2022-02-09 design team notes

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 15:31:37 +0000

OpenPGP Design Team Meeting
2022-02-09

Present:
     dkg
     Justus Winter
     Stephen Farrell
     Daniel Huigens
     Paul Wouters and friend
     Jeffrey Lau
     gniibe

Agenda:
     - MRs
     - scheduling next I-D

Notes:

     - MRs: 5 approved/no-thumbs-down: 135, 132, 131, 120, 102
     - https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/135
     - some editorial comments Daniel H will address then merge
   - https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/132
   - good to go, merged
   - https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/131
- good to go, merged
   - https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/120
- good to go, merged
   - https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/102
- good to go, merged
- some chat about AAD and getting crypto review of that (a bit later)

- AAD issues (justus)
- we're using 15 octet nonces for OCB which isn't recommended
- https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/issues/83
- ACTION on Paul W: ping authors of RFC7253 wrt nonce size

- https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/issues/84
- options:
- leave as-is
- make daniel H's suggested change (zap low 8 octets of HKDF output) and 
check that's safe for all other modes as well as OCB
- justus willing to write MR
- dkg: with whom would we double-check this? (cfrg?)
- daniel H checked what TLS does: checked and TLS differs from the above 
proposal (TLS does what the current draft does)

- https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/issues/86
- currently: chunk index is in AAD and input to nonce
- proposal is to drop it afrom AAD
- meta-proposal: add this to the list of questions to ask some crypto 
personage

- scheduling:
- paul and all: good to emit I-D soon
- dkg: people would like to implement and will give better feedback if 
they do
- daniel H: we're hitting the point where we're changing for 
optimisations and asking CFRG etc may take a while
- dkg: we could pick things we think are ok and include in I-D and ask 
CFRG in parallel
- "implementation draft" idea used by other WGs - sounds like we're 
there and we should make that clear to the WG
- maybe add implementation status section to draft (might be more 
effective for the one after next) but we can inlcude text saying "<x> 
plan to implement and experiment with this draft" if people want to make 
such statements (e.g. in a mail to the DT list) - good to have a 
project-specific URL for that implementation, but no need to commit to a 
timeline for such implementation - those links could be gitlab/github 
issues (or whatever)
- we have 2 new MRs to get into next I-D yet (based on above discussion) 
- could we get that done in a week?
- we'd like test vectors too, justus aims to have some next week
- implication is we try agree/approve all changes next week, then ask 
Paul to emit draft the week after (23rd Feb)
- IETF113 I-D cutoff is March 7th so we should be ok for that