decisions affecting eOAM attributes for the initial key exchange

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Hi all,

As a reminder, at the last meeting, we have decided to go with the â??2 attributes / 4 OAMPDUsâ?? solution.

Now, to develop formal definitions for these attributes, we need to clarify several things. The 10 questions below (in red) are mainly for Steve and Craig, but everyone is welcome to chime in.

Attribute #1: List of supported curves (RO)

1.Â Â Â Â Â Â IANA defines the name space (registry) for the elliptic curves: https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml#tls-parameters-8

RFC4492 included 25 curves from the above list. RFC 8422 deprecated most of them and listed only these curves:

secp256r1 (23), secp384r1 (24), secp521r1 (25), x25519 (29), x448 (30)

The first three curves are specified in SEC 2 [SECG-SEC2] and are also recommended in ANSI X9.62 [ANSI.X9-62.2005] and FIPS 186-4 [FIPS.186-4]

But IANA shows secp256r1 (23), secp384r1 (24), x25519 (29), x448 (30) as recommended for use and secp521r1 (25) is listed as â??not recommendedâ??

Q1: Is there a reason to have more than one curve as mandatory?

Q2: Which curve(s) do we list as mandatory to support?

Q3: If ONU supports any of the curves beyond the 5 listed above, do we even want the ONU to report them?

Q4: Do we list all curve IDs in our standard, so simply point to IANA?

2.Â Â Â Â Â Â Types of curves

In addition to named curves, IAN shows two additional curve types: explicit_prime and explicit_char2 (https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml#tls-parameters-10)

But RFC 8422 says: â??The predecessor of this document also supported explicitly defined prime and char2 curves, but these are deprecated by this specification.â??

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Q5: Should we follow the RFC 8422 lead and stay with only the named curves?

3.Â Â Â Â Â Â Point format

Similarly to curve types, IANA lists three point formats: uncompressed, ansiX962_compressed_prime, ansiX962_compressed_char2 (https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml#tls-parameters-9).

RFC8422 deprecated two of them and only kept the uncompressed.

Q6: Do we also keep only the uncompressed point format? (Q5 and Q6 are tied together, I believe)

4.Â Â Â Â Â Â Extensibility of curve list

Previously, it was mentioned in our discussions that we should allow the capability of extending the list of curves in the future. This needs to be clarified.

Q7: Does extensibility assume ONUâ??s ability to report future curves that are not listed in the 1904.4, but that will be listed in in the future in other standards or in IANA?

The RFC 8422 states that curve-ID values 0xFE00 through 0xFEFF are reserved for private use.

Q8: Should the 1904.4 also allow ONUs to report private-use curves?

Q9: How should the OLT differentiate private-use curves reported by ONUs from different vendors? Should we include OUI to disambiguate the domain of the private-use curve-IDs?

5.Â Â Â Â Â Â Order of curve-IDs in the list

The RFC8422 states that â??Items in named_curve_list are ordered according to the client's preferences (favorite choice first).â??

Q10: How can ONU decide that one curve is more preferable than another curve? If ONU supports multiple curves, does it care which one will the OLT choose?

Thank you,

Glen

To unsubscribe from the STDS-1904-4-TF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-1904-4-TF&A=1