[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: FIPS 186 and X9.42: One of these things is not like the other
- To: "John C. Kennedy" <jkennedy@trustpoint.com>
- Subject: RE: FIPS 186 and X9.42: One of these things is not like the other
- From: Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:18:21 -0500
- Cc: <pgut001@cs.aucKland.ac.nz>, <ietf-pkix@imc.org>, <ietf-smime@imc.org>, <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>, <ekr@rtfm.com>, <robert.zuccherato@entrust.com>, <djohnson@certicom.com>, <wpolk@nist.gov>, <jis@mit.edu>, <mleech@nortelnetworks.com>, "Elaine Barker" <elaine.barker@nist.gov>, "Sharon Keller" <skeller@nist.gov>, "Simon Blake-Wilson" <sblakewi@certicom.com>, "Phil Griffin" <Phil_Griffin@certicom.com>
- In-Reply-To: <NDBBKGCMPJCKIDPKAHACGEPBCAAA.jkennedy@trustpoint.com>
- References: <4.2.0.58.19991122105512.009c6e00@mail.spyrus.com>
- Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
John:
At 12:57 PM 11/22/99 -0800, John C. Kennedy wrote:
>1. With all due respect, saying that I have been "out of the loop" is not
>quite correct. I have continued to track the output of both X9F1 and IETF
>with regards to X9.42 and DH for the last couple of years. I have copies
>of X9.42 drafts up through February 1999. One does not have to be "in the
>loop" to see the inconsistencies I have pointed out.
>
>2. The PKIX "son-of-2459" work, of which mostly only the ASN.1 portion of
>X9.42 is relevant, is probably correct. What is a bigger problem is that
>RFC 2631 (Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method) by Eric Rescorla references
>a 1998 draft. The related drafts, <draft-ietf-smime-small-subgroup-02.txt>
>and <draft-ietf-pkix-dhpop-02.txt>, reference RFC 2631. Is there proper
>alignment in these works with the current state of X9.42? I don't think
>so. How would the larger IETF community know if they were? Is ANSI
>keeping all these authors "in the loop"?
>
>3. FIPS 186-1 on DSA and rDSA is a good example. If the X9.42
>specification had been kept as simple as FIPS 186 we wouldn't be where we
>are now. It is unfortunate that crypto-politics and other machinations
>did not allow NIST to handle this work independent of ANSI from the
>beginning.
1. I apologize. You certainly have not taken an active role in the IETF
or X9F1 for the last few years. I am glad to hear that you have kept
current. I would encourage you to become actively involved again.
2. Once the IETF adopted X9.42, I worked diligently with X9F1 to ensure
that none of the aspects of X9.42 that were adopted by the IETF were
changed. We made a final comparison of the X9.42 draft and RFC 2631 just
prior to publication of the RFC. I have commitment that the parts of X9.42
that are included in RFC 2631 will not be changed unless a security problem
is discovered. If a security problem is discovered, then the IETF will
want to update RFC 2631 anyway, so this is not a concern.
3. Agree.
Russ
References: