[Standards-JIG] The Great Encryption Debate
Peter Saint-Andre
stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Aug 2 13:10:50 CDT 2005
Over time it has become painfully clear that RFC 3923 [1] is not going
to be widely implemented or deployed. Likewise, JEP-0027 [2] was a good
beginning but it is limited to OpenPGP keys, which many people (let
alone Aunt Tillie) do not have. Despite the fact that this situation is
intolerable, for the last 2+ years I have actively discouraged
discussion of end-to-end encryption outside the Internet Standards
Process (e.g., I persuaded the Council not to publish the "Secure
Stanzas" proposal [3] submitted by Justin Karneges). I take full
responsibility for that (the reasons for this were more political than
technical). However, we can't live without end-to-end encryption
forever, and I think we need to develop some running code around a
protocol on which we can get rough consensus. If we can achieve that,
perhaps we can agree on a technology that we could eventually propose to
the IETF as a replacement for RFC 3923. However, the primary goal here
is to develop a technology (based on best security practices and
technologies) that we as a community can get behind. I realize that
security is a contentious area on which agreement can be hard to find,
but that's why they pay us the big bucks. :-)
So I propose that we initiate "The Great Encryption Debate". Any and all
proposals are on the table. Let's publish Justin's "Secure Stanzas"
proposal. Let's publish a proposal based on W3C XML Encryption and XML
Signature [4] if someone wants to write such a proposal. Let's debate
the merits of RFC 3923 and JEP-0027. Let's talk about the Off-the-Record
Communications (OTR) plugin for Gaim. [5] Let's discuss JEP-0116. [6]
But let's not just talk, let's also implement. (I apologize in advance
for the fact that I'm not a good coder, but I'll try to help if I can.)
In parallel to this change of thinking on my part (in fact I have simply
been waiting for the right time), Ian Paterson and I have been reworking
JEP-0116 (ESessions), which the JEP Editor will release momentarily. We
do not claim that JEP-0116 is the final answer (especially in its
current state, since it needs to be reviewed and improved in a number of
areas). Rather, we publish it with the intent of sparking discussion and
eventually finding an approach that can gain consensus. While I rather
like the ESessions approach since it is based on both SSH and OTR in
several important ways, it may not be the proposal that achieves
consensus. If not, so be it. If so, hopefully we'll all go forth and
implement. But there's only one way to find out....
Let the debate begin!
Peter
[1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3923.txt
[2] http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0027.html
[3] http://www.jabber.org/jeps/inbox/secure-01.html
[4] http://xml.coverpages.org/xmlAndEncryption.html
[5] http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/
[6] http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0116.html
More information about the Standards-JIG
mailing list