OASIS Key Management Interoperability Protocol (KMIP) TC

Expand all | Collapse all

Consistency in Terms and Order in Key Format Section of KMIP Specification

  • 1.  Consistency in Terms and Order in Key Format Section of KMIP Specification

    Posted 02-04-2010 16:36
    When I was writing up the new section for the KMIP Usage Guide I
    reviewed the key format definitions in the KMIP Specification (see
    section 2.1.7).  I noticed that we are using different terminology when
    describing DSA (section 2.1.7.2/3) keys and DH (section 2.7.1.6/7) and
    that the order of parameters are slightly different between the two
    sections.  Given that the same key could be used in both of these
    algorithms it may make some since to make these two sections consistent
    with one another.
    
    Here is a summary of the discrepancies between the two section....
    
    *	In sections 2.1.7.2/3 in the text below the tables we refer to Q
    as the prime divisor while in sections 2.1.7.6/7 in the text below the
    tables we refer to Q as the prime factor.  We should standardize upon
    one term either divisor or factor and use it in both sections.
    *	In sections 2.1.7.6/7 in the text below the tables please change
    'P is the prime, ..." to 'P is the prime modulus,...' to make these
    sections consistent with section 2.1.7.2/3 
    *	In Table 10 the order of key components is P, Q, G, X while in
    Table 14 the order of key components is P, G, Q, J, X -- I would
    recommend that we change the order in Table 14 to P, Q, G, J, X and the
    text below Table 14 should be reorder in the same manner.
    *	In Table 11 the order of key components is P, Q, G, Y while in
    Table 15 the order of key components is P, G, Q, J, X -- I would
    recommend that we change the order in Table 15 to P, Q, G, J, Y and the
    text below Table 14 should be reorder in the same manner.
    
    
    Also one other comment on Section 2.1.7.11 (ECDH Public Key) -- in the
    text below the table we have a reference to FIPS 186-3 -- Given that
    this document does not describe ECDH I'd suggest removing the text in
    parentheses.
    
    Judy
    
    Judith Furlong | Principal Product Manager | EMC Product Security Office
    | RSA -The Security Division of EMC | t: 508 249 3698 | e:
    Furlong_Judith@emc.com 
    
    


  • 2.  Re: [kmip] Consistency in Terms and Order in Key Format Section ofKMIP Specification

    Posted 02-04-2010 17:50
    Judy,
    
    Comments in line...
    
    spt
    
    Furlong_Judith@emc.com wrote:
    > When I was writing up the new section for the KMIP Usage Guide I
    > reviewed the key format definitions in the KMIP Specification (see
    > section 2.1.7).  I noticed that we are using different terminology when
    > describing DSA (section 2.1.7.2/3) keys and DH (section 2.7.1.6/7) and
    > that the order of parameters are slightly different between the two
    > sections.  Given that the same key could be used in both of these
    > algorithms it may make some since to make these two sections consistent
    > with one another.
    > 
    > Here is a summary of the discrepancies between the two section....
    > 
    > *	In sections 2.1.7.2/3 in the text below the tables we refer to Q
    > as the prime divisor while in sections 2.1.7.6/7 in the text below the
    > tables we refer to Q as the prime factor.  We should standardize upon
    > one term either divisor or factor and use it in both sections.
    
     From 186-3:
    
    Section 2
    
    q 1. For DSA, one of the DSA domain parameters; a prime factor
          of p – 1.
       2. For RSA, a prime factor of the modulus n.
    
    Q An ECDSA public key.
    
    Section 4 (DSA)
    
    q a prime divisor of (p-1)
    
    So I think you can pick your poison.  Personally, I don't care which it is.
    
    > *	In sections 2.1.7.6/7 in the text below the tables please change
    > 'P is the prime, ..." to 'P is the prime modulus,...' to make these
    > sections consistent with section 2.1.7.2/3 
    
    See above.
    
    > *	In Table 10 the order of key components is P, Q, G, X while in
    > Table 14 the order of key components is P, G, Q, J, X -- I would
    > recommend that we change the order in Table 14 to P, Q, G, J, X and the
    > text below Table 14 should be reorder in the same manner.
    
    DSA has three parameters p, q, and g.  The DSA private key is referred 
    to as x as per FIP 186-3 and the DSA public key is referred to as y in 
    FIPS 186-3.
    
    What's J?  I couldn't find it.
    
    
    > *	In Table 11 the order of key components is P, Q, G, Y while in
    > Table 15 the order of key components is P, G, Q, J, X -- I would
    > recommend that we change the order in Table 15 to P, Q, G, J, Y and the
    > text below Table 14 should be reorder in the same manner.
    
    See above.
    
    > Also one other comment on Section 2.1.7.11 (ECDH Public Key) -- in the
    > text below the table we have a reference to FIPS 186-3 -- Given that
    > this document does not describe ECDH I'd suggest removing the text in
    > parentheses.
    
    Should we point to NIST SP 800-57-1 instead?
    
    > Judy
    > 
    > Judith Furlong | Principal Product Manager | EMC Product Security Office
    > | RSA -The Security Division of EMC | t: 508 249 3698 | e:
    > Furlong_Judith@emc.com 
    > 
    > 
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    > generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
    > 
    >