Sept 24, 2014 Meeting Minutes
- Bob performed roll call, we have quorum. This will be an official meeting.
1 Opening remarks (co-chairs)
2 Roll call
3 Review / approval of the agenda
4 Review of previous meeting minutes
5 Old Business
- Status of V2.40
- Statements of Use
- Moving forward with 2.x and v3.0 topics
- How to get new mechanisms out faster than v3.0 (AES-XTS, possibly others)
- Authenticated attributes
- Forking, handling, threading etc
- PKCS11 2.40 Header files
- Topics for next call
6 New Business
7 Review Action Items
- Sven's additions, Sven has worked on a prioritized list we could discuss.
- Stef and Oscar's constants discussion
Motion to accept agenda
- Tim moved, Sven seconded. No objections or abstentions or discussions.
Approve Previous Meeting Minutes
- Tim moved, Stef seconded. No objections or abstentions or discussions.
Status on 2.40
- Bob G: Chet sent around a note that the ballot passed for the 5 documents. The OASIS folks are in the process of converting these to committee specs, hope to have posted today or tomorrow. Next steps would be for those orgs that are going to issue statements of use to point to the official documents.
- Tim: add the approved version number and date to your templates
- Bob G: If people could please post those right away, then we can vote in our next meeting to accept those. If I have time to prep things, we can vote to set up another ballot for OASIS for the final vote. Need to describe what the standard is, what's in the new document. Hope to have a cut at a the "differences" doc I've been working on. I'll send a note around the reflector, but would urge all voting members to attend the next meeting.
PKCS11 2.40 Header files
- Stef: Oscar did the initial work, and I've taken over some of the edits. Interesting to note, several of the definitions both that we voted on or that we've come to depend on from the 2.30 amendments and stuff. For example, the pointer to ULONG change didn't make it into the spec and some other things. Oscar was surprised they were missing. I've updated the wiki with the differences, we'll have to make an amendment. I documented them and added them to the header files, but they'll have to be added to the spec. The biggest concern are the missing definitions. We need to go through them and figure out which are missing on purpose or on accident.
- Bob G: do we want to do this as a 2.41 out before we take 2.40 as OASIS candidate standard. Valerie, thoughts?
- Valerie: Haven't analyzed all of the differences, but depends on how easy it is to do an amendment? Don't want to derail current process if we can get an amendment out faster?
- Tim: we can pick this up as errata
- Bob G: They do fit well into that category, unless there is anyone that feels strongly about delaying our 2.40 documents. I'm happy to start with Stef's document and lead this to an amendment doc. (AI) Stef, is it all on the wiki?
- Stef: Yes, I've just sent this out to the release. In my opinion we should release headers for 2.40, even though some things will be missing. We'll have to ask people to put them in additional header files if they are depending on them. I think the headers should match the normative documents, and not lead our changes.
- Bob G: I will have errata process We could make header files that document current 2.40, but I don't see why we can't have one that matches the inflight errata. The header files should reflect errata + normative docs.
- Stef: As we're doing it on a short time frame, it would be okay, but otherwise headers will be in a flux state. How much discussion should we have?
- Tim: I would suggest we put the errata things in a separate header file, until the errata was published.
- Bob G: I would think that these are errors and should reflect that.
- Tim: The rational behind it is we have to wait for OASIS standard.
- Bob G: I believe we can do errata's against committee spec, so we won't have to wait 90 days, but I will check with Chet (AI). I'll make a first cut and send to STef and Oscar to make sure it looks accurate this week and then to the entire group for review. (AI) In the call in 2 weeks we can clarify about what to do for the errata (separate header files or not)
- Stef: I just wanted to note that v2.30 was a big grab bag of amendments and all sorts of things. It's not totally clear to the unititiated which were to make it in and which weren't. My list might be incomplete, people should look at their header files for other errata.
- Bob G: I will send a note around to urge exactly that review.
- Valerie: I thought we could do like Bob described (add the errata to the current header files), but we can talk about this next meeting.
Request for recommendations for implementations
- Bob G: sent canned replies that we don't, as a committee, make recommendations, but that he could reach out to members of the roster to ask about their implementations. Valerie, Tim and I had more ideas.
- Tim: I started a list of known implementations page. What we've done with the queries coming in from KMIP is keeping a list that anyone on the committee can update. It's a draft wiki page. Technical committee members can take a pass at it, adding things they are aware of outside of their own products. That link has gone to the list.
- Bob G: any comments or suggestions?
- Valerie: yes, please everyone look at this. should only take a minute.
- Graham: I've got a proposal in the works, we already have that for CKM_RSA_AES_KEY_WRAP. My proposal is to add this to AES. WE do consulting with banks, where they use master symmetric keys on HSMs. If it ever gets compromised, it can do nasty things like unwrap a key and change its type. People are wanting to make clusters of HSMs available, possibly even publicy. At the moment, we don't have a mech to meet this need. There are some in 2.20 that are similar, but you have to assign the templates to one particular key. I've put a link on the wiki to a PDF about the kinds of attacks that are currently possible and how to protect against them with this new mech. Anyone else?
- BOb G: anyone else?
- Tim: We had a long discussion on this with Michael St Johns about the wrapping stuff. I would appreciate if Graham could look at MichaelStJ's proposals and discussions and bring those comments in.
- Graham: Doran made a proposal for CKM_RSA_AES_KEY_WRAP. I want to also clear up Doran's mechanism in the current spec. in our experience testing interoperability between vendors, this could be a security problem
- Bob G: Bring forward a proposal like Doran's from last year, and instead of the wiki, put it in the documents direction. I'll look for the minutes and discussions from last year to see if there's anything we need to be aware of. Bring froward the new mech and changes to the existing one. could you do that?
- Graham: yes
- Sven: In our list of features, we're missing standardized encryption of the whole communication. I like this proposal, but we should extend it to a more general method. WE can argue about the number of attributes we can add, make it a feature not only for keys but all data being transfered. This is all proprietary now, so no chance of choosing vendors.
- Bob G: sounds like a big enough topic it may take a couple of meetings to get through. Please come up with a complementary proposal or to work with Graham on his proposal. This might be a short term and long term proposals. What do you think Sven?
- Sven: It may take time to define all of the different flavors of these mechanisms. We should not introduced one after another after another without thinking of this and all data exchanges.
- BOb G: Don't want to derail something that sounds like a good short term fix. Please look at Graham's proposal and see if it can simply be extended, or we'll take Graham's to the committee.
- Sven: Can we discuss offline?
- Graham: Yes, then we can discuss in meeting in 4 weeks.
Forking, handling, threading etc
- discuss next time.
Statements of Use
- Valerie's note: Covered above in the 2.40 discussion.
Moving forward with v2.X and v3.0
- Bob G: XTS and other things would be good for 2.1. Anything else for near term release?
- Sven: I want to look at my list in the next call about which items we should move forward. Maybe in 2 weeks or maybe 4.
- Bob G: Bob R. asked us to hold off on Wan-Teh's proposal until he's had a chance to catch up with Wan-Teh. I haven't had a chance to catch up with everyone, but hope to do that in the next 2 weeks and then in 4 weeks we can look at what would be of interest it that time.
Face to Face
- Sven: Any plan for another face to face meeting? or RSA again?
- Bob G: I kinda wanted to wait to see when we'd have a candidate spec done, the next conference is in April - seems a bit far out. ANy ideas on when to meet again?
- Sven: Another option could be conf in Germany?
- Valerie: Last year I saw many of you at ICMC, if you're planning on attending again - let me know
- Bob G: I'll pull in some more details before creating a straw poll or we can talk in 2 weeks.
- Bob G: number of people have proposals out.
- Sven: sent a proposal for a Gov't conference in DC in October, unsure if he'll be speaking yet
- Bob G: one going to RSA, right Valerie?
- Tim: Valerie and I submitted a proposal for RSA. Got some great input from Graham and John. Very broud topic, we'll need help narrowing it down if we get accepted.
- Sven: I have another idea about a German conference in a few weeks - I can try that, but it's in two weeks time.
- Bob G: NIST is doing a workshop on Post Quantum crypto, in APril. Deadline for papers for that is in December. Not sure we have anything in particular related to it, but I do plan to attend. Are there others? or other Media? we will have a press release for version 2.40, and there may be other opportunities.
- Valerie: I've seen some great blogs recently on this, please send the pointers to the reflector.
Topics for Next Call
- Bob G: Looking at errata, implementation page, Sven's list, and discussion about face-to-face and Graham's proposal about secure key import in our next meeting.
- Any additional topics? hearing none.
- Valerie: create 3.0 suggestion document, move 2.40 suggestions over into new 3.0 suggestion document. (not started, yet) (09042014.01)
- Bob: will make a first pass by going through meeting minutes. I will send to Valerie, who can clean it up and post to the wiki.(09042014.02) (Complete Aug 3, 2014)
- Valerie (et al): add new suggestions to the 3.0 wiki, so we can track if they have owners and are moving forward. (09042014.03)
- Bob G: how about I take time to write up a couple of paragraphs on how to get out a new mechanism to take to the team by the next meeting? (04062014.01)
- Tim H: send suggestions on how to handle minor updates prior to v3.0 to the list (16072014.01)
- Valerie: Check with her team to see if anyone will be picking up Darren's proposal from a few weeks back (10092014.01)
- Bob G: Check with Chet to see if we have to do anything special for the header files (10092014.02)
- Valerie: Follow up on timeline for new AES-XTS proposal (10092014.03)
Bob G: Start with Stef's document and make an amendment doc. Stef's broken definitions write-up (24092014.01)
- Bob G: I believe we can do errata's against committee spec, so we won't have to wait 90 days, but I will check with Chet (24092014.02)
Motion to Adjourn
- Tim moved, Bob R seconded. No objections or abstentions or discussions. Adjourned 1:46PM US-PDT.