Subject: [precis] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 13:05:13 -0700

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-7613bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with jsalowey's point about discouraging raw password comparison. Can
you do something about that?

The use of "false positive" is confusing because positive can either mean
"accept" or "reject". I would use "false accept" or "false reject" or some
other clearer term

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 16:12:54 -0600

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-7613bis/

In version -08 we added the following text:

8.2.  Password/Passphrase Comparison

   In systems that conform to modern best practices for security,
   verification of passwords during authentication will not use the
   comparison defined in Section 4.2.3.  Instead, because the system
   performs cryptographic calculations to verify the password, it will
   prepare the password as defined in Section 4.2.1 and enforce the
   rules as defined in Section 4.2.2 before performing the relevant
   calculations.

> "accept" or "reject". I would use "false accept" or "false reject" or some

That's a good suggestion - we'll incorporate that change in the
post-IESG revision.

Peter

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:13:55 -0700

>    rules as defined in Section 4.2.2 before performing the relevant

OK, I can live with this.

-Ekr

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 18:44:11 -0600

>> draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-08: No Objection

<snip/>

> That's a good suggestion - we'll incorporate that change in the

Ben Campbell noticed that I made this change in 7564bis but neglected to
do so in 7613bis. I'll fix that and post a revised I-D.

Peter