ietf-smime
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Key Wrap Algorithms

2001-07-10 11:06:40
Apologies Russ, but I'm not clear on exactly what you're stating below.
You're introductory text indicates that implementations MUST support key
transport, key agreement and previously distributed key-encryption keys
(PDKEK), but the table from the minutes you include below only indicates a
MUST for key transport (using RSA PKCS#1 v1.5).  I would have assumed that
only key transport MUST be implemented?  If key agreement and PDKEK MUST be
implemented, I must admit that I didn't notice any consensus for this on the
list.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Housley, Russ [mailto:rhousley(_at_)rsasecurity(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 12:51 PM
To: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Key Wrap Algorithms



All:

After a fairly long debate, the consensus on key management has been 
reached.  We seem to agree that:

    Implementations MUST support key transport, key 
agreement, and previously
    distributed symmetric key-encryption keys, as represented 
by ktri, 
kari, and
    kekri, respectively.  Implementations MAY support the 
password-based key
    management as represented by pwri.  Implementations MAY 
support any other
    key management technique as represented by ori.

At the last IETF meeting, we agreed on the mandatory to implement 
algorithms.  The Minutes say:

    Signature: DSA and RSA (PKCS #1 v1.5) as per Russ' proposal
    Message digest: SHA-1
    Key Management: RSA (PKCS #1 v1.5)
    Encryption: Triple-DES

But, the Minutes are silent about key wrapping.

It is my view that we should require implementations to 
support Triple-DES 
Key Wrap.  This view is reflected in 
draft-ietf-smime-cmsalg-00. And, I 
think that this approach will facilitate the adoption of mail lists.

I want to hear from others.  What do you think is the best 
MUST and SHOULD 
statements regarding key wrap algorithms?

Russ

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>