Re: [W3C Web Crypto WG] CfC : Call for Consensus on the integration of curve25519 in WG deliverables (please vote until the 26th of August)

I am finding the option of pulling EC out of the specification altogether
and addressing it in a separate document more and more attractive: The
first WebCrypto EC specification would contain non-NIST curves. We can work
at an appropriate pace, given the dependencies on other groups and we can
avoid delaying the rest of our main document.

...Mark


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08/26/2014 08:39 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:34 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > My opinion is the same as Richard insofar as"We should agree on the
>> > principle that we will support the next generation curves that CFRG
>> > and TLS agree on, and work to support that once it's decided." But we
>> > need to operationalize what we mean by "support".
>> >
>> > The choices are having that curve in the *extension specs* versus
>> > *main spec*.  Given that all major browser vendors I know of will
>> > implement the recommended set of curves from CFRG to TLS and so
>> > exposing those to WebCrypto makes sense - and given the liaison
>> > relationship between the IETF and W3C and our commitment to harmonize
>> > as much as possible our specs - it seems that that those recommended
>> > curves should be in the main spec text.
>> >
>> >
>> >> I strongly disagree with this, as it ignores quite a bit about how both
>> >> browsers and standards work.
>> >
>> >> Consider that TLS 1.2 was not implemented for years after it was
>> >> standardized.
>> >> Consider that the CFRG recommendation will be for TLS 1.3, which is
>> growing
>> >> in considerable complexity.
>> >
>> >> Harry, just because a spec (which itself will have it's own timeline
>> for
>> >> review and discussion, and may change at any point) adopts something
>> is not
>> >> an argument, at all, for an entirely unrelated spec to do so.
>> >
>> >
>> > Given that extensibility is
>> > still a bit blurry, it's hard to claim we have a good solution for
>> > extension specs quite yet. However, I also agree we can't wait around
>> > forever for CFRG.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Which is precisely what extension specs are for. We didn't sit on CSS1
>> >> while waiting for VRML or WebGL to come along.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > This in mind, we can move forward by either:
>> >
>> > 1) Have a "placeholder" text for it as a "Feature at Risk". The NUMS
>> > text could be that placeholder, with a note saying that this may be
>> > removed/changed if TLS/CFRG do not recommend NUMS.
>> >
>> >
>> >> This is unacceptable. Placeholders in specs, particularly ones that
>> favour
>> >> any particular solution during ACTIVE DISCUSSION, are simply grossly
>> >> inappropriate, especially for a spec at the maturity of Web Crypto,
>> >> compared to the maturity of the discussions going on.
>> >
>> >> So that it's clear that it's not NUMS specific, the objection is to
>> ADDING
>> >> any new features that are "FEATURES AT RISK". Anything, including
>> anything
>> >> in the spec today, that we believe is still a "feature at risk" is
>> >> something we should be actively working towards moving to an extension
>> spec.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > and/or
>> >
>> > 2) Go back to "Last Call" and add the recommended non-NIST curve in
>> > later in the main spec text.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Or 3), what's been said all along, which is "Add new curves as they
>> become
>> >> available, both in specification and implementation, and UAs are
>> confident
>> >> in the maturity such that they're willing to expose and support as an
>> >> indefinite part of the Web platform"
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I see no harm in either of these proposals and think either would
>> > satisfy the problem. It's not as simple as adding in NUMS or not. What
>> > we need is a commitment to support whatever TLS/CFRG recommend.
>> >
>> > If TLS/CFRG do *not* recommend a set of non-NIST curves by the
>> > necessary timeline for WebCrypto (i.e. getting out of CR by end of the
>> > year), in the first case we simply drop the "Feature at Risk" and in
>> > the second case we simply do not go back to "Last Call" but progress
>> > to Rec as normal.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Frankly, a spec intentionally placing something that is
>> unimplementable AND
>> >> unspecifiable ("a placeholder") is unacceptable.
>> >> A spec intentionally placing something that is known as "something
>> we're
>> >> probably going to rip out" - whether it be Curve25519 or NUMS - is
>> >> unacceptable.
>>
>> However, it appears that simply ignoring the issue of non-NIST curves
>> in the main text spec is also unacceptable to Microsoft and a good
>> deal of real-world developers. So let's find a reasonable position we
>> can all agree on that shows that we have a firm commitment to non-NIST
>> curves but allows us to continue progress.
>>
>> My proposal is that the WebCrypto WG make a firm commit to honor the
>> desire for a non-NIST curve in the main spec text *regardless* of our
>> internal timing for transition to Rec.
>>
>
> You're asking the WG to make a firm commitment to something that is
> neither standardized nor defined.
>
> That cannot be done, and I hope you realize the sort of process violation
> it would be encouraging.
>
>
>>
>> In the case that these are *not* ready by the time we get to
>> transition out of CR into PR, then we simply update the main spec to
>> have a non-NIST curve *after* Rec. If somehow they do resolve before
>> we leave CR, then we just go back to Last Call. Having a "feature at
>> risk" in the spec here makes sense so that developers know we are
>> watching the space and are ready to act ASAP, but it is not strictly
>> necessary.
>>
>
> Harry, you know an extension spec is equally viable for acting ASAP. The
> WebApps WG is perfectly capable of demonstrating this if you need historic
> examples of new features, such as Service Workers, that can be explored
> rapidly.
>
>
>>
>> If the spec is past PR and we can't go back to Last Call, then we'd
>> just make it WebCrypto version 1.1 and put the CFRG/TLS non-NIST curve
>> in the main spec text then.
>>
>> Of course, if CFRG/TLS discussion - or if the CFRG/TLS recommendations
>> are such that that browser vendors never implement - never resolves
>> then we never update the spec.
>>
>> I suggest then we inform CFRG and TLS about our formal dependency on
>> their decision with the above plan of action. I believe this would
>> resolve the open issue for support non-NIST curves, although I am not
>> sure if it would resolve BAL's objections.
>>
>
> Let's be clear: I object to this formal dependency. I think you will be
> speaking for yourself, and not the consensus of this WG, precisely because
> we lack consensus.
>
>
>>
>> In lieu of this, an extension spec for Curve 25519 need to go forward
>> as well along with double-checking extensibility. Regarding how this
>> fits in with BAL's objection to the CfC, IMHO a formal vote should be
>> taken on the NUMS proposal and more discussion on the point re the
>> algorithm parameters for curves, where again we have a Google and
>> Microsoft disagreement.
>>
>>   cheers,
>>      harry
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm happy to check in with TLS/CFRG on the timeline and tell them we
>> > are considering an official dependency with them.
>> >
>> > Note in the long-run having the spec being extensible is exceedingly
>> > important, as regardless of the non-NIST curves recommended by CFRG,
>> > various governments and other folks will want their own crypto
>> > algorithms. In this regard, the only other issue holding us from going
>> > out of CR is likely the lack of clarity over extension specs. While
>> > the spec does note that "This algorithm must be extensible, so as to
>> > allow new cryptographic algorithms to be added" there is little
>> > guidance after that.
>> >
>> >    cheers,
>> >       harry
>> >
>> >
>> > On 08/25/2014 05:32 PM, GALINDO Virginie wrote:
>> >>>> Hi all, This is a kind reminder that this thread is still live
>> >>>> until tomorrow. If you have some opinion to give, it is now. There
>> >>>> was already an objection to that resolution [1], but this is not a
>> >>>> reason for not answering to it. Any feedback will help the chair to
>> >>>> evaluate endorsement/rejection/alternative to that resolution.
>> >>>> Regards, Virginie
>> >>>>
>> >>>> [1]
>> >>>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2014Aug/0107.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: GALINDO Virginie [mailto:Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com] Sent:
>> >>>> mardi 12 août 2014 15:22 To: public-webcrypto@w3.org Cc:
>> >>>> webcrypto@trevp.net; hhalpin@w3.org; Wendy Seltzer Subject: [W3C
>> >>>> Web Crypto WG] CfC : Call for Consensus on the integration of
>> >>>> curve25519 in WG deliverables (please vote until the 26th of
>> >>>> August)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Dear all,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I would like to call for consensus on the way we will move forward
>> >>>> with the contribution provided by Trevor Perrin describing
>> >>>> Curve25519 operation [1]. We discussed several options and I would
>> >>>> like to submit the following resolution to your vote.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Proposed resolution : the WG agrees on the principle that
>> >>>> Curve25519 will be added to Web Crypto WG deliverables as an
>> >>>> extension to the Web Crypto API specification. An extension being
>> >>>> here a separate specification having its own Recommendation Track.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Deadline : votes have to be expressed expected until 26th of August
>> >>>> 23:59 UTC Guideline for voting : reply to all to this mail,
>> >>>> indicating, +1 if you agree with the resolution, -1 means if you
>> >>>> object, 0 if you can live with it. While silence means implicit
>> >>>> endorsement of the resolution, explicit expression of vote is
>> >>>> encouraged, to help the chair measuring the enthusiasm of the WG
>> >>>> participants.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Note the following additional information :
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -          This extension will be used as a beta test for the
>> >>>> extensibility mechanism that we need to address as raised in bug
>> >>>> 25618
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -          The proposed editor is Trevor, as long as Trevor agrees
>> >>>> to maintain the document
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -          This resolution does not imply that the draft submitted
>> >>>> by Trevor is endorsed in its current state, as the WG did not have
>> >>>> a chance to discuss the content. The discussion about that content
>> >>>> can be conducted over the mailing list, or during a dedicated call,
>> >>>> where we will invite Trevor.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Have a great week ! Virginie Chair of the Web Crypto WG
>> >>>>
>> >>>> [1]
>> >>>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2014Aug/0064.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>>  ________________________________ This message and any attachments
>> >>>> are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential
>> >>>> information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or
>> >>>> partial, is prohibited. E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our
>> >>>> company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or
>> >>>> falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
>> >>>> please delete it and notify the sender. Although all reasonable
>> >>>> efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses,
>> >>>> the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted
>> >>>> virus. ________________________________ This message and any
>> >>>> attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain
>> >>>> confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure,
>> >>>> either whole or partial, is prohibited. E-mails are susceptible to
>> >>>> alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if
>> >>>> altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended
>> >>>> recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
>> >>>> Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
>> >>>> transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for
>> >>>> damages caused by a transmitted virus.
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT/R78AAoJEPgwUoSfMzqcossP/1cqJOQikGlWirV0lgoJSp+b
>> eJV1/1o8CYGjh8w31COgnOmtONUh3uoHQPZQJp8RzwWik1RWjqB7g1ZecKVTX0NX
>> 1cdsEmvNwboxCz3TYRU/eXLkGWzXlUT6Mtx8EufwAvk6UAvSGai9ISZUgoKwGFsI
>> HLAS3qIC/mUqhOHc86+LNaFFgiSH8kKvECOw6zf99QaE4NEuC8ankjNId2KpYcqy
>> /k4mKbAkpIw2naMzlXsQUJnV+nBwZ37ZXN5l1RNTL8tJkEFmspvoTbA3cHveRtLO
>> wck09qzpycFsgJrchVuH28oyy8+Zca8Bm2vLrWa0Lr/tbD5TQEZOxw44cSp4OJ7c
>> ClX7SLncoWy1B/g+ynHEPnMQr6MIVnUG4Sh6AAGlEWD3VhrMD9tj8ItdSMJqfPgK
>> QykBFEhYXz60h5C3CMQWBIe54qV9ulKqZ4ETHx4k6rWNXXzAdyj8SURLJPiz/+rX
>> MxbKNpuhtXmoJY7aE9QrxSWPCkJzT81zjxPQ0mLjEyVzYdh+TDjMC9t78BtxIDvn
>> UQvCDsANcQw8fKekAkd/TwbvpuVvwh7r84UfQ9mpevzKFXBfhozDdb8kATH5QjcF
>> Nol10nR+aBYqJwrpdGmkt8eJ2YWIlmNnBWV2fqBbuULKFmBkKUv0xkgRpSr8sqvb
>> BN420K4WX+pAwc0bXIW0
>> =ugxI
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>
>