Subject: [MSEC] standardizing source auth schemes

From: "Dondeti, Lakshminath" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:32:04 -0400

I agree with Ran that the RSA signatures scheme might be the best 
candidate for the MUST source auth scheme.

That out of the way :-), we have RSA-sig at one end of the spectrum 
(high communication and computation complexity) and TESLA at the other 
end (low overhead, but needs loose time sync).  They are both well 
understood and belong in standards track (modulo any IPR issues with 
TESLA; this is probably a good time for IPR announcements, if any).

There are a number of source auth schemes published in peer-reviewed 
conferences and journals (I am not an author of any of them, so claiming 
objectivity here) that seem to cover the middle ground between the 
RSA-sig and TESLA schemes.  We need to document them so (as David 
alluded to) they can get exposure as possible choices of a source auth 
protocol (for many folks, time sync and sign-each are major turnoffs).

The other litmus test I am using is that of not requiring back channel 
communication after registration (we have been through this many times 
in MSEC; no point in revisiting that).

In terms of what becomes a WG doc and what doesn't, we have the 
consensus processes (let the games begin).  On whether all the new I-Ds 
become standards/experimental/BCP/informational, the chairs and ADs 
might opine on that.  I will just hint that we might draw a lesson here 
from RMT :-).  Another clue might be to see how encryption and 
authentication schemes are defined in the past.

best,
Lakshminath
_______________________________________________
msec mailing list
[email-masked]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/msec

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 13:05:48 -0400

The issue was not renaming. The issue was not dealing with the questions
raised in the earlier thread. This was in continuation of the behavior
I saw earlier: instead of being forthright and upfront with the issues,
try to be selectively hush/mum/quiet about things.

br,
Atul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Dondeti, Lakshminath [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:34 PM
> To: Sharma Atul (Nokia-ES/Boston)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [MSEC] standardizing source auth schemes
> 
> 
> On thread renaming: there was a suggestion (by Radia?) made 
> not too long 
> ago to rename threads when the topic and the discussion don't 
> match.  I 
> think it's  quite helpful.
> 
> On procedural matters: please check with chairs and ADs.
> 
> On GDOIv2: there was a discussion and I think consensus on the list 
> quite a while ago.
> 
> On your work: a few folks raised issues.  I would revise, 
> resubmit, and 
> invite discussion.  For instance, think about an application scenario 
> (or requirements) where your scheme would work better than 
> other schemes 
> proposed in the literature, and start from there.  Also, 
> please see my 
> response to your questions.
> 
> best wishes,
> Lakshminath
>