Internet Info 1993/Internet Info CD-ROM (Walnut Creek) (1993).iso/inet/ietf/snmpauth/snmpauth-minutes-90may.txt

Text File | 1993-02-17 | 4.0 KB | 105 lines

CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_


Reported by Jeff Schiller/ MIT

Mintues

The SNMP Authentication Working Group met at the Pittsburgh IETF meeting
on May 2, 1990.

The primary focus of the meeting was a discussion of the relative merits
of various Cryptographic Checksum algorithms used to ensure origination
authentication and integrity of Protocol Data Units (PDUs).  This
discussion was the result of comments received from members of the
Privacy and Security Research Group which reviewed the documents.
Basically the problem boiled down to identifying which algorithms were
both secure enough and yet were fast enough for the potential high
traffic volumes that they may be needed to process.  The algorithms
discussed were:

QMDC4, QMDC1, MD2, MD4, SNEFRU2, SNEFRU4.

It was announced at the meeting that SNEFRU2 had been broken, and the
consensus was that it therefore should not be considered.

There was a sense that we needed to get cloture on the issue of what
algorithm to use, in time for implementations to be demonstrated at
Interop in October.

Therefore the following decisions and action items resulted:


   o Consensus was reached that the RFC should *not* provide a menu of
     choices for implementors.  Instead the RFC should specify just one
     of the candidate algorithms as the selected algorithm.  This was
     argued on the basis that if more then one was allowed, each vendor
     would pragmatically need to support all of them, at a cost in terms
     of the development time for product, and memory size of the runtime
     binary.
   o Jeff Mogul and Chuck Davin volunteered to get performance numbers
     on the various candidate algorithms and post their results to the
     mailing list.  The hope here is that of all the algorithms,
     sufficient number would be of high performance that at least one
     could be found that would be both fast and secure enough to pass a
     review by people who can judge the security of these types of
     algorithms.
   o The above work would be completed and a selection made in time to
     advance the three documents for consideration as "Proposed
     Standards" of the Internet.


Since the meeting was held, the performance measures have been made and

                                   1






it appears that MD4 is the clear performance winner.  The documents will
be changed to reflect this and submitted to the IETF with the
recommendation they be progressed to the Proposed Draft state.

ATTENDEES

    Hossein Alaee             [e-mail]
    Stan Ames                 [e-mail]
    Douglas Bagnall           [e-mail]
    Pat Barron                [e-mail]
    Pablo Brenner
    Alison Brown              alison@[e-mail]
    Ted Brunner               [e-mail]
    Jeff Carpenter            [e-mail]
    Martina Chan              [e-mail]
    Steve Crocker             [e-mail]
    James Davin               [e-mail]
    Frank Kastenholtz         [e-mail]
    Louis Mamakos             [e-mail]
    Keith McCloghrie          sytek![e-mail]
    Jeffrey Mogul             [e-mail]
    Oscar Newkerk             [e-mail]
    John O'hara               [e-mail]
    Brad Parker               [e-mail] ?
    Mike Patton               [e-mail]
    David Perkins             [e-mail]
    Tod Pike                  [e-mail]
    Jonathan Saperia          [e-mail]
    Greg Satz                 [e-mail]
    Jeffrey Schiller          [e-mail]
    Richard Smith             [e-mail] ?
    Ted Soo-Hoo               [e-mail]
    Michael StJohns           [e-mail]
    Louis Steinberg           [e-mail]
    Ian Thomas                [e-mail]
    David Waiteman            [e-mail]
    Steve Waldbusser          [e-mail]
    Y C Wang                  21040 Homestead Rd Cupertino,Ca 95041



                                   2