From 7cf8b4719ed2f66de898ff06d49ebc3d1743309f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bernie Hoeneisen Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 17:03:05 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] prepare for submission and housekeeping --- pep-trustwords/Makefile | 2 +- .../archive/draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04.html | 1042 ++++++++++++++++ .../archive/draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04.txt | 840 +++++++++++++ .../archive/draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04.xml | 1087 +++++++++++++++++ pep-trustwords/draft-birk-pep-trustwords.mkd | 2 +- 5 files changed, 2971 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 pep-trustwords/archive/draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04.html create mode 100644 pep-trustwords/archive/draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04.txt create mode 100644 pep-trustwords/archive/draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04.xml diff --git a/pep-trustwords/Makefile b/pep-trustwords/Makefile index 289c208e..a0b1d8ab 100644 --- a/pep-trustwords/Makefile +++ b/pep-trustwords/Makefile @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ #!/usr/bin/make -f NAME := draft-birk-pep-trustwords -REV := 04 +REV := 05 DRAFT := $(NAME)-$(REV) OUTPUTS = $(DRAFT).xml $(DRAFT).txt $(DRAFT).html diff --git a/pep-trustwords/archive/draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04.html b/pep-trustwords/archive/draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04.html new file mode 100644 index 00000000..cd7ea3f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/pep-trustwords/archive/draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04.html @@ -0,0 +1,1042 @@ + + + + + + + IANA Registration of Trustword Lists: Guide, Template and IANA Considerations + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Network Working GroupB. Hoeneisen
Internet-DraftUcom.ch
Intended status: Standards TrackH. Marques
Expires: January 9, 2020pEp Foundation
July 08, 2019
+ +

IANA Registration of Trustword Lists: Guide, Template and IANA Considerations
+ draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04

+ +

Abstract

+

This document specifies the IANA Registration Guidelines for Trustwords, describes corresponding registration procedures, and provides a guideline for creating Trustword list specifications.

+

Trustwords are common words in a natural language (e.g., English), which hexadecimal strings are mapped to. Such a mapping makes verification processes like fingerprint comparisons more practical, and less prone to misunderstandings.

+

Status of This Memo

+

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

+

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

+

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

+

This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2020.

+

Copyright Notice

+

Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

+

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

+ + +
+

Table of Contents

+ + +

+1. Introduction +

+

In public-key cryptography, comparing the respective public key fingerprints for each of the communication partners involved is vital to ensure that there is no Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attack on the communication channel. These fingerprints normally consist of a chain of hexadecimal characters, which are often impractical, cumbersome, and prone to misunderstandings for end-users.

+

To mitigate these challenges, several systems offer Trustword comparison as an alternative to these hexadecimal strings. Trustwords are common words in a natural language (e.g., English), which these hexadecimal strings are mapped to. Using Trustwords makes verification processes like fingerprint comparisons more natural for users.

+

For example, in pEp’s Privacy by Default proposition [I-D.birk-pep] Trustwords are used to facilitate easy contact verification for end-to-end encryption. Trustword comparison is offered after the peers have opportunistically exchanged public keys. Examples of Trustword lists used by current pEp implementations can be found here in CSV format: https://pep.foundation/dev/repos/pEpEngine/file/tip/db.

+

In addition to contact verification, Trustwords are also used for other purposes, such as Human-Readable 128-bit Keys [RFC1751], One Time Passwords (OTP) [RFC1760] [RFC2289], SSH host-key verification, VPN server certificate verification, deriving private keys in blockchain applications for cryptocurrencies, and to import or synchronize secret keys across multiple devices owned by a single user [I-D.hoeneisen-pep-keysync]. Further ideas include the use of Trustwords for private key recovery in case of loss, contact verification in Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) [RFC6120], or for X.509 certificate verification in browsers [RFC3647].

+

+1.1. Requirements Language +

+

The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

+

+1.2. Terms +

+

The following terms are defined for the scope of this document:

+

+ + +

+ + +

+2. The Concept of Trustword Mapping +

+

+2.1. Example +

+

As already discussed, fingerprints normally consist of a string of hexadecimal characters. A typical fingerprint looks like this:

+

+ + +

Instead of the hexadecimal string, Trustwords allow users to compare ten common words of a language of their choosing. For example, the above fingerprint, mapped to English Trustwords, might appear as:

+

+ + +

The same fingerprint might appear in German Trustwords as:

+

+ + +

Note: These examples are for illustration purposes only, and are not derived from any published Trustword list.

+

+2.2. Previous work +

+

The basic concept of Trustword mapping - also known as a biometric word list - for fingerprint comparison is well-documented. Examples of this concept are used with One-Time Passwords (OTP) [RFC1751] [RFC1760] [RFC2289], as well as the PGP Word List (“Pretty Good Privacy word list” [PGP.wl]. Furthermore, cryptocurrencies use a similar concept for deriving private keys [bitcoin.wl].

+

[[ TODO: Explain each previous usage a bit further and synchronize with section Section 1. ]]

+

Regarding today’s needs, previous proposals have the following shortcomings:

+

+ + +

Furthermore, there are differences in the basic concept:

+

+ + +

+2.3. Number of Trustwords for a language +

+

If the number of Trustwords in a dictionary is low, shorter parts of the original string (e.g., fingerprint) can be mapped to a single Trustword. Thus, many Trustwords will need to be compared, which results in a potentially cumbersome process for users, and lead to reduced usability.

+

To reduce the number of Trustwords that need to be compared, pEp’s Privacy by Default proposition [I-D.birk-pep] calls for 16-bit scalars to be mapped to natural language words. Therefore, the size (by number of key-value pairs) of any key-value pair structure is 65536. However, the number of unique values to be used in a language may be smaller than this number. This discrepancy can be addressed by using the same value, or Trustword, for more than one key. In such cases, the entropy of the representation is slightly reduced. For example, a Trustword list of 42000 words still allows for an entropy of log_2(42000), which is roughly 15.36 bits in 16-bit mappings. As a consequence such Trustword lists are not bijective.

+

On the other hand, small Trustword lists allow for Trustwords consisting of words with shorter strings (number of short words per natural language is normally limited), which are easier to use in implementations where Trustwords have to be typed or written, such as in OTP applications.

+

Note: This specification allows for registration of variable numbers of Trustwords per dictionary.

+

+2.4. Language +

+

Although English is used around the world, the vast majority of the global population is not English-speaking. For an application to be useful to as wide of a user base as possible, localization is essential. Therefore, this specification allows for registration of Trustword lists in different languages.

+

In applications where two humans are attempting to establish secure communications, it is likely that they share a common language. At this time, no real-world use cases for Trustword list translation capability have been identified. Because the translation process inherently - and drastically - increases complexity from an IANA registration standpoint, the topic of Trustword translation is beyond the scope of this document.

+

+2.5. The nature of the words +

+

Every Trustword list SHOULD be clear of offensive language (i.e., swear/curse words, slurs, derogatory language, etc.). This process SHOULD be performed by native speakers of each respective language.

+

+3. Security Considerations +

+

There are no specific security considerations.

+

+4. Privacy Considerations +

+

[[ TODO ]]

+

+5. IANA Considerations +

+

Each natural language requires a different set of Trustwords. To allow implementers for identical Trustword lists, a IANA registry is to be established. The IANA registration policy according to [RFC8126] is “Expert Review” and “Specification Required”.

+

[[ Note: Further details of the IANA registry and requirements for the expert to assess the specification are for further study. A similar approach as used in [RFC6117] is likely followed. ]]

+

+5.1. Registration Template (XML chunk) +

+
+  <record>
+    <languagecode>
+      <!--  ISO 639-3 (e.g. eng, deu, ...) -->
+    </languagecode>
+    <bitsize>
+      <!-- How many bits can be mapped with this list
+           (e.g. 8, 16, ...) -->
+    </bitsize>
+    <numberofuniquewords>
+      <!-- number of unique words registered
+           (e.g. 256, 65536, ...) -->
+    </numberofuniquewords>
+    <bijective>
+      <!-- whether or not the list allows for a two-way-mapping
+           (e.g. yes, no) -->
+    </bijective>
+    <version>
+      <!-- version number within language
+           (e.g. b.1.2, n.0.1, ...)  -->
+    </version>
+    <registrationdocs>
+      <!-- Change accordingly -->
+      <xref type="rfc" data="rfc2551"/>
+    </registrationdocs>
+    <requesters>
+      <!-- Change accordingly -->
+      <xref type="person" data="John_Doe"/>
+      <xref type="person" data="Jane_Dale"/>
+    </requesters>
+    <additionalinfo>
+      <paragraph>
+        <!-- Text with additional information about
+             the Wordlist to be registered -->
+      </paragraph>
+      <artwork>
+        <!-- There can be artwork sections, too -->
+      </artwork>
+    </additionalinfo>
+    <wordlist>
+      <!-- Change accordingly -->
+      <w0>first</w0>
+      <w1>second</w1>
+      [...]
+      <w65535>last<w65535>
+    </wordlist>
+  </record>
+ 
+  <people>
+    <person id="John_Doe">
+      <name> <!-- Firstname Lastname --> </name>
+      <org> <!-- Organization Name --> </org>
+      <uri> <!-- mailto: or http: URI --> </uri>
+      <updated> <!-- date format YYYY-MM-DD --> </updated>
+    </person>
+    <!-- repeat person section for each person -->
+  </people>
+
+

Authors of a Wordlist are encouraged to use these XML chunks as a template to create the IANA Registration Template.

+

+5.2. IANA Registration +

+

An IANA registration will contain the fallowing elements:

+

+5.2.1. Language Code (<languagecode>) +

+

The language code follows the ISO 639-3 specification [ISO639], e.g., eng, deu.

+

[[ Note: It is for further study, which of the ISO 639 Specifications is most suitable to address the Trustwords’ challenge. ]]

+

Example usage for German:

+
+e.g.  <languagecode>deu</languagecode>
+
+

+5.2.2. Bit Size (<bitsize>) +

+

The bit size is the number of bits that can be mapped with the Wordlist. The number of registered words in a word list MUST be 2 ^ (<bitsize>).

+

Example usage for 16-bit Wordlist:

+
+e.g.  <bitsize>16</bitsize>
+
+

+5.2.3. Number Of Unique Words (<numberofuniquewords>) +

+

The number of unique words that are registered.

+
+e.g.  <numberofuniquewords>65536</numberofuniquewords>
+
+

+5.2.4. Bijectivity (<bijective>) +

+

Whether the registered Wordlist has a one-to-one mapping, meaning the number of unique words registered equals 2 ^ (<bitsize>).

+

Valid content: ( yes | no )

+
+e.g.  <bijective>yes</bijective>
+
+

+5.2.5. Version (<version>) +

+

The version of the Wordlist MUST be unique within a language code.

+

[[ Note: Requirements to a “smart” composition of the version number are for further study ]]

+
+e.g.  <version>b.1.2</version>
+
+

+5.2.6. Registration Document(s) (<registrationdocs>) +

+

Reference(s) to the Document(s) containing the Wordlist

+
+e.g.  <registrationdocs>
+        <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4979"/>
+      </registrationdocs>
+
+e.g.  <registrationdocs>
+        <xref type="rfc" data="rfc8888"/> (obsoleted by RFC 9999)
+        <xref type="rfc" data="rfc9999"/>
+      </registrationdocs>
+
+e.g.  <registrationdocs>
+        [International Telecommunications Union,
+        "Wordlist for Foobar application",
+        ITU-F Recommendation B.193, Release 73, Mar 2009.]
+      </registrationdocs>
+
+

+5.2.7. Requesters (<requesters>) +

+

The persons requesting the registration of the Wordlist. Usually these are the authors of the Wordlist.

+
+e.g.  <requesters>
+        <xref type="person" data="John_Doe"/>
+      </requesters>
+
+      <people>
+        <person id="John_Doe">
+          <name>John Doe</name>
+          <org>Example Inc.</org>
+          <uri>mailto:john.doe@example.com</uri>
+          <updated>2018-06-20</updated>
+        </person>
+      </people>
+
+

Note: If there is more than one requester, there must be one <xref> element per requester in the <requesters> element, and one <person> chunk per requester in the <people> element.

+

+5.2.8. Further Information (<additionalinfo>) +

+

Any other information the authors deem interesting.

+
+e.g.  <additionalinfo>
+        <paragraph>more info goes here</paragraph>
+      </additionalinfo>
+
+

Note: If there is no such additional information, then the <additionalinfo> element is omitted.

+

+5.2.9. Wordlist (<wordlist>) +

+

The full Wordlist to be registered. The number of words MUST be a power of 2 as specified above. The element names serve as key used for enumeration of the Trustwords (starting at 0) and the elements contains the values being individual natural language words in the respective language.

+
+e.g.  <wordlist>
+        <w0>first</w0>
+        <w1>second</w1>
+        [...]
+        <w65535>last<w65535>
+      </wordlist>
+
+] ]>
+
+

[[ Note: The exact representation of the Wordlist is for further study. ]]

+

+6. Acknowledgments +

+

The authors would like to thank the following people who have provided feedback or significant contributions to the development of this document: Andrew Sullivan, Claudio Luck, Daniel Kahn Gilmore, Kelly Bristol, Michael Richardson, Rich Salz, Volker Birk, and Yoav Nir.

+

This work was initially created by pEp Foundation, and then reviewed and extended with funding by the Internet Society’s Beyond the Net Programme on standardizing pEp. [ISOC.bnet]

+

+7. References

+

+7.1. Normative References

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
[RFC2119] +Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC4949] +Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007.
[RFC8126] +Cotton, M., Leiba, B. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017.
+

+7.2. Informative References

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
[bitcoin.wl]"Seed Phrase", June 2019.
[I-D.birk-pep] +Marques, H. and B. Hoeneisen, "pretty Easy privacy (pEp): Privacy by Default", Internet-Draft draft-birk-pep-03, March 2019.
[I-D.hoeneisen-pep-keysync] +Hoeneisen, B. and H. Marques, "pretty Easy privacy (pEp): Key Synchronization Protocol", Internet-Draft draft-hoeneisen-pep-keysync-00, July 2019.
[I-D.marques-pep-handshake] +Marques, H. and B. Hoeneisen, "pretty Easy privacy (pEp): Contact and Channel Authentication through Handshake", Internet-Draft draft-marques-pep-handshake-03, July 2019.
[ISO639]"Language codes - ISO 639", n.d..
[ISOC.bnet] +Simao, I., "Beyond the Net. 12 Innovative Projects Selected for Beyond the Net Funding. Implementing Privacy via Mass Encryption: Standardizing pretty Easy privacy’s protocols", June 2017.
[PGP.wl]"PGP word list", November 2017.
[RFC1751] +McDonald, D., "A Convention for Human-Readable 128-bit Keys", RFC 1751, DOI 10.17487/RFC1751, December 1994.
[RFC1760] +Haller, N., "The S/KEY One-Time Password System", RFC 1760, DOI 10.17487/RFC1760, February 1995.
[RFC2289] +Haller, N., Metz, C., Nesser, P. and M. Straw, "A One-Time Password System", STD 61, RFC 2289, DOI 10.17487/RFC2289, February 1998.
[RFC3647] +Chokhani, S., Ford, W., Sabett, R., Merrill, C. and S. Wu, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate Policy and Certification Practices Framework", RFC 3647, DOI 10.17487/RFC3647, November 2003.
[RFC6117] +Hoeneisen, B., Mayrhofer, A. and J. Livingood, "IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA Considerations", RFC 6117, DOI 10.17487/RFC6117, March 2011.
[RFC6120] +Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, DOI 10.17487/RFC6120, March 2011.
+

+Appendix A. IANA XML Template Example +

+

This section contains a non-normative example of the IANA Registration Template XML chunk.

+
+  <record>
+    <languagecode>lat</languagecode>
+    <bitsize>16</bitsize>
+    <numberofuniquewords>57337</numberofuniquewords>
+    <bijective>no</bijective>
+    <version>n.0.1</version>
+    <registrationdocs>
+      <xref type="rfc" data="rfc2551"/>
+    </registrationdocs>
+    <requesters>
+      <xref type="person" data="Julius_Caesar"/>
+    </requesters>
+    <additionalinfo>
+      <paragraph>
+        This Wordlist has been optimized for
+        the Roman Standards Process.
+      </paragraph>
+    </additionalinfo>
+    <wordlist>
+      <w0>errare</w0>
+      <w1>humanum</w1>
+      [...]
+      <w65535>est<w65535>
+    </wordlist>
+  </record>
+
+  <people>
+    <person id="Julius_Caesar">
+      <name>Julius Caesar</name>
+      <org>Curia Romana</org>
+      <uri>mailto:julius.cesar@example.com</uri>
+      <updated>1999-12-31</updated>
+    </person>
+  </people> 
+
+

+Appendix B. Document Changelog +

+

[[ RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication ]]

+

+ + +

+Appendix C. Open Issues +

+

[[ RFC Editor: This section should be empty and is to be removed before publication. ]]

+

+ + +

Authors' Addresses

+
+
+ + Bernie Hoeneisen + + + Ucom Standards Track Solutions GmbH + + + + CH-8046 Zuerich, + + + + Switzerland + + Phone: +41 44 500 52 40 + +EMail: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch (bernhard.hoeneisen AT ucom.ch) + +URI: https://ucom.ch/ + +
+
+
+ + Hernani Marques + + + pEp Foundation + + Oberer Graben 4 + + + CH-8400 Winterthur, + + + + Switzerland + + EMail: hernani.marques@pep.foundation + +URI: https://pep.foundation/ + +
+
+ + + diff --git a/pep-trustwords/archive/draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04.txt b/pep-trustwords/archive/draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04.txt new file mode 100644 index 00000000..1d413197 --- /dev/null +++ b/pep-trustwords/archive/draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04.txt @@ -0,0 +1,840 @@ + + + + +Network Working Group B. Hoeneisen +Internet-Draft Ucom.ch +Intended status: Standards Track H. Marques +Expires: January 9, 2020 pEp Foundation + July 08, 2019 + + + IANA Registration of Trustword Lists: Guide, Template and IANA + Considerations + draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04 + +Abstract + + This document specifies the IANA Registration Guidelines for + Trustwords, describes corresponding registration procedures, and + provides a guideline for creating Trustword list specifications. + + Trustwords are common words in a natural language (e.g., English), + which hexadecimal strings are mapped to. Such a mapping makes + verification processes like fingerprint comparisons more practical, + and less prone to misunderstandings. + +Status of This Memo + + This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the + provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. + + Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering + Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute + working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- + Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. + + Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months + and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any + time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference + material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." + + This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2020. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + document authors. All rights reserved. + + This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal + Provisions Relating to IETF Documents + (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of + publication of this document. Please review these documents + + + +Hoeneisen & Marques Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 1] + +Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists July 2019 + + + carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect + to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must + include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of + the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as + described in the Simplified BSD License. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 1.2. Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 2. The Concept of Trustword Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 2.1. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 2.2. Previous work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 2.3. Number of Trustwords for a language . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 2.4. Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 2.5. The nature of the words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 4. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 5.1. Registration Template (XML chunk) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 5.2. IANA Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 5.2.1. Language Code () . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 5.2.2. Bit Size () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 5.2.3. Number Of Unique Words () . . . 8 + 5.2.4. Bijectivity () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 5.2.5. Version () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 5.2.6. Registration Document(s) () . . . . 9 + 5.2.7. Requesters () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 5.2.8. Further Information () . . . . . . . 9 + 5.2.9. Wordlist () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + Appendix A. IANA XML Template Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + Appendix B. Document Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + Appendix C. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + +1. Introduction + + In public-key cryptography, comparing the respective public key + fingerprints for each of the communication partners involved is vital + to ensure that there is no Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attack on the + communication channel. These fingerprints normally consist of a + chain of hexadecimal characters, which are often impractical, + cumbersome, and prone to misunderstandings for end-users. + + + +Hoeneisen & Marques Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 2] + +Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists July 2019 + + + To mitigate these challenges, several systems offer Trustword + comparison as an alternative to these hexadecimal strings. + Trustwords are common words in a natural language (e.g., English), + which these hexadecimal strings are mapped to. Using Trustwords + makes verification processes like fingerprint comparisons more + natural for users. + + For example, in pEp's Privacy by Default proposition [I-D.birk-pep] + Trustwords are used to facilitate easy contact verification for end- + to-end encryption. Trustword comparison is offered after the peers + have opportunistically exchanged public keys. Examples of Trustword + lists used by current pEp implementations can be found here in CSV + format: https://pep.foundation/dev/repos/pEpEngine/file/tip/db. + + In addition to contact verification, Trustwords are also used for + other purposes, such as Human-Readable 128-bit Keys [RFC1751], One + Time Passwords (OTP) [RFC1760] [RFC2289], SSH host-key verification, + VPN server certificate verification, deriving private keys in + blockchain applications for cryptocurrencies, and to import or + synchronize secret keys across multiple devices owned by a single + user [I-D.hoeneisen-pep-keysync]. Further ideas include the use of + Trustwords for private key recovery in case of loss, contact + verification in Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) + [RFC6120], or for X.509 certificate verification in browsers + [RFC3647]. + +1.1. Requirements Language + + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this + document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. + +1.2. Terms + + The following terms are defined for the scope of this document: + + o pEp Handshake: The process of one user contacting another over an + independent channel in order to verify Trustwords (or by fallback: + fingerprints). This can be done in-person or through established + verbal communication channels, like a phone call. + [I-D.marques-pep-handshake] + + o Man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack: cf. [RFC4949], which states: "A + form of active wiretapping attack in which the attacker intercepts + and selectively modifies communicated data to masquerade as one or + more of the entities involved in a communication association." + + + + + +Hoeneisen & Marques Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 3] + +Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists July 2019 + + +2. The Concept of Trustword Mapping + +2.1. Example + + As already discussed, fingerprints normally consist of a string of + hexadecimal characters. A typical fingerprint looks like this: + + F482 E952 2F48 618B 01BC 31DC 5428 D7FA ACDC 3F13 + + Instead of the hexadecimal string, Trustwords allow users to compare + ten common words of a language of their choosing. For example, the + above fingerprint, mapped to English Trustwords, might appear as: + + dog house brother town fat bath school banana kite task + + The same fingerprint might appear in German Trustwords as: + + klima gelb lappen weg trinken alles kaputt rasen rucksack durch + + Note: These examples are for illustration purposes only, and are not + derived from any published Trustword list. + +2.2. Previous work + + The basic concept of Trustword mapping - also known as a biometric + word list - for fingerprint comparison is well-documented. Examples + of this concept are used with One-Time Passwords (OTP) [RFC1751] + [RFC1760] [RFC2289], as well as the PGP Word List ("Pretty Good + Privacy word list" [PGP.wl]. Furthermore, cryptocurrencies use a + similar concept for deriving private keys [bitcoin.wl]. + + [[ TODO: Explain each previous usage a bit further and synchronize + with section Section 1. ]] + + Regarding today's needs, previous proposals have the following + shortcomings: + + o Small/limited Trustword dictionaries, which generally result in + more Trustwords to compare + + o Trustwords are usually only available in English, which limits + their usefulness for non-English speakers + + Furthermore, there are differences in the basic concept: + + o The Trustword concept suggested herein intends to improve + usability and security for all users, instead of only the + technically-savvy. + + + +Hoeneisen & Marques Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 4] + +Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists July 2019 + + + o In many use cases, Trustwords are only read (aloud) during the + comparison process, rather than being written or typed. For + example, two users might compare their respective Trustwords + during a phone call. Verbal comparison reduces the need to keep + the actual Trustwords short. The use of longer Trustwords + increases the entropy within the system, as it allows for a larger + dictionary, and thus reduces the likelihood of phonetic + collisions. + +2.3. Number of Trustwords for a language + + If the number of Trustwords in a dictionary is low, shorter parts of + the original string (e.g., fingerprint) can be mapped to a single + Trustword. Thus, many Trustwords will need to be compared, which + results in a potentially cumbersome process for users, and lead to + reduced usability. + + To reduce the number of Trustwords that need to be compared, pEp's + Privacy by Default proposition [I-D.birk-pep] calls for 16-bit + scalars to be mapped to natural language words. Therefore, the size + (by number of key-value pairs) of any key-value pair structure is + 65536. However, the number of unique values to be used in a language + may be smaller than this number. This discrepancy can be addressed + by using the same value, or Trustword, for more than one key. In + such cases, the entropy of the representation is slightly reduced. + For example, a Trustword list of 42000 words still allows for an + entropy of log_2(42000), which is roughly 15.36 bits in 16-bit + mappings. As a consequence such Trustword lists are not bijective. + + On the other hand, small Trustword lists allow for Trustwords + consisting of words with shorter strings (number of short words per + natural language is normally limited), which are easier to use in + implementations where Trustwords have to be typed or written, such as + in OTP applications. + + Note: This specification allows for registration of variable numbers + of Trustwords per dictionary. + +2.4. Language + + Although English is used around the world, the vast majority of the + global population is not English-speaking. For an application to be + useful to as wide of a user base as possible, localization is + essential. Therefore, this specification allows for registration of + Trustword lists in different languages. + + In applications where two humans are attempting to establish secure + communications, it is likely that they share a common language. At + + + +Hoeneisen & Marques Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 5] + +Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists July 2019 + + + this time, no real-world use cases for Trustword list translation + capability have been identified. Because the translation process + inherently - and drastically - increases complexity from an IANA + registration standpoint, the topic of Trustword translation is beyond + the scope of this document. + +2.5. The nature of the words + + Every Trustword list SHOULD be clear of offensive language (i.e., + swear/curse words, slurs, derogatory language, etc.). This process + SHOULD be performed by native speakers of each respective language. + +3. Security Considerations + + There are no specific security considerations. + +4. Privacy Considerations + + [[ TODO ]] + +5. IANA Considerations + + Each natural language requires a different set of Trustwords. To + allow implementers for identical Trustword lists, a IANA registry is + to be established. The IANA registration policy according to + [RFC8126] is "Expert Review" and "Specification Required". + + [[ Note: Further details of the IANA registry and requirements for + the expert to assess the specification are for further study. A + similar approach as used in [RFC6117] is likely followed. ]] + +5.1. Registration Template (XML chunk) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Hoeneisen & Marques Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 6] + +Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists July 2019 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + first + second + [...] + last + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Authors of a Wordlist are encouraged to use these XML chunks as a + template to create the IANA Registration Template. + + + + + + + +Hoeneisen & Marques Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 7] + +Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists July 2019 + + +5.2. IANA Registration + + An IANA registration will contain the fallowing elements: + +5.2.1. Language Code () + + The language code follows the ISO 639-3 specification [ISO639], e.g., + eng, deu. + + [[ Note: It is for further study, which of the ISO 639 Specifications + is most suitable to address the Trustwords' challenge. ]] + + Example usage for German: + + e.g. deu + +5.2.2. Bit Size () + + The bit size is the number of bits that can be mapped with the + Wordlist. The number of registered words in a word list MUST be 2 ^ + "()". + + Example usage for 16-bit Wordlist: + + e.g. 16 + +5.2.3. Number Of Unique Words () + + The number of unique words that are registered. + + e.g. 65536 + +5.2.4. Bijectivity () + + Whether the registered Wordlist has a one-to-one mapping, meaning the + number of unique words registered equals 2 ^ "()". + + Valid content: ( yes | no ) + + e.g. yes + +5.2.5. Version () + + The version of the Wordlist MUST be unique within a language code. + + [[ Note: Requirements to a "smart" composition of the version number + are for further study ]] + + + + +Hoeneisen & Marques Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 8] + +Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists July 2019 + + + e.g. b.1.2 + +5.2.6. Registration Document(s) () + + Reference(s) to the Document(s) containing the Wordlist + + e.g. + + + + e.g. + (obsoleted by RFC 9999) + + + + e.g. + [International Telecommunications Union, + "Wordlist for Foobar application", + ITU-F Recommendation B.193, Release 73, Mar 2009.] + + +5.2.7. Requesters () + + The persons requesting the registration of the Wordlist. Usually + these are the authors of the Wordlist. + + e.g. + + + + + + John Doe + Example Inc. + mailto:john.doe@example.com + 2018-06-20 + + + + Note: If there is more than one requester, there must be one + element per requester in the element, and one + chunk per requester in the element. + +5.2.8. Further Information () + + Any other information the authors deem interesting. + + + + + +Hoeneisen & Marques Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 9] + +Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists July 2019 + + + e.g. + more info goes here + + + Note: If there is no such additional information, then the + element is omitted. + +5.2.9. Wordlist () + + The full Wordlist to be registered. The number of words MUST be a + power of 2 as specified above. The element names serve as key used + for enumeration of the Trustwords (starting at 0) and the elements + contains the values being individual natural language words in the + respective language. + + e.g. + first + second + [...] + last + + + ] ]> + + [[ Note: The exact representation of the Wordlist is for further + study. ]] + +6. Acknowledgments + + The authors would like to thank the following people who have + provided feedback or significant contributions to the development of + this document: Andrew Sullivan, Claudio Luck, Daniel Kahn Gilmore, + Kelly Bristol, Michael Richardson, Rich Salz, Volker Birk, and Yoav + Nir. + + This work was initially created by pEp Foundation, and then reviewed + and extended with funding by the Internet Society's Beyond the Net + Programme on standardizing pEp. [ISOC.bnet] + +7. References + +7.1. Normative References + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, + . + + + + +Hoeneisen & Marques Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 10] + +Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists July 2019 + + + [RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", + FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007, + . + + [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for + Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, + RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, + . + +7.2. Informative References + + [bitcoin.wl] + "Seed Phrase", June 2019, . + + [I-D.birk-pep] + Marques, H. and B. Hoeneisen, "pretty Easy privacy (pEp): + Privacy by Default", draft-birk-pep-03 (work in progress), + March 2019. + + [I-D.hoeneisen-pep-keysync] + Hoeneisen, B. and H. Marques, "pretty Easy privacy (pEp): + Key Synchronization Protocol", draft-hoeneisen-pep- + keysync-00 (work in progress), July 2019. + + [I-D.marques-pep-handshake] + Marques, H. and B. Hoeneisen, "pretty Easy privacy (pEp): + Contact and Channel Authentication through Handshake", + draft-marques-pep-handshake-03 (work in progress), July + 2019. + + [ISO639] "Language codes - ISO 639", n.d., + . + + [ISOC.bnet] + Simao, I., "Beyond the Net. 12 Innovative Projects + Selected for Beyond the Net Funding. Implementing Privacy + via Mass Encryption: Standardizing pretty Easy privacy's + protocols", June 2017, . + + [PGP.wl] "PGP word list", November 2017, + . + + + + + + +Hoeneisen & Marques Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 11] + +Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists July 2019 + + + [RFC1751] McDonald, D., "A Convention for Human-Readable 128-bit + Keys", RFC 1751, DOI 10.17487/RFC1751, December 1994, + . + + [RFC1760] Haller, N., "The S/KEY One-Time Password System", + RFC 1760, DOI 10.17487/RFC1760, February 1995, + . + + [RFC2289] Haller, N., Metz, C., Nesser, P., and M. Straw, "A One- + Time Password System", STD 61, RFC 2289, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2289, February 1998, + . + + [RFC3647] Chokhani, S., Ford, W., Sabett, R., Merrill, C., and S. + Wu, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate + Policy and Certification Practices Framework", RFC 3647, + DOI 10.17487/RFC3647, November 2003, + . + + [RFC6117] Hoeneisen, B., Mayrhofer, A., and J. Livingood, "IANA + Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA + Considerations", RFC 6117, DOI 10.17487/RFC6117, March + 2011, . + + [RFC6120] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence + Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, DOI 10.17487/RFC6120, + March 2011, . + +Appendix A. IANA XML Template Example + + This section contains a non-normative example of the IANA + Registration Template XML chunk. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Hoeneisen & Marques Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 12] + +Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists July 2019 + + + + lat + 16 + 57337 + no + n.0.1 + + + + + + + + + This Wordlist has been optimized for + the Roman Standards Process. + + + + errare + humanum + [...] + est + + + + + + Julius Caesar + Curia Romana + mailto:julius.cesar@example.com + 1999-12-31 + + + +Appendix B. Document Changelog + + [[ RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication ]] + + o draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04: + + * Add Privacy Considerations section + + * Swapped Security and IANA Consideration Sections + + * Corrected typo in ISO references + + * Updated Introduction, Terms and concept Sections + + + +Hoeneisen & Marques Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 13] + +Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists July 2019 + + + o draft-birk-pep-trustwords-03: + + * Update references + + * Minor edits + + o draft-birk-pep-trustwords-02: + + * Minor editorial changes and bug fixes + + * Added more items to Open Issues + + * Add usage example + + o draft-birk-pep-trustwords-01: + + * Included feedback from mailing list and IETF-101 SECDISPATCH + WG, e.g. + + + Added more explanatory text / less focused on the main use + case + + + Bit size as parameter + + * Explicitly stated translations are out-of-scope for this + document + + * Added draft IANA XML Registration template, considerations, + explanation and examples + + * Added Changelog to Appendix + + * Added Open Issue section to Appendix + +Appendix C. Open Issues + + [[ RFC Editor: This section should be empty and is to be removed + before publication. ]] + + o Better explain previous work on Trustwords + + o More explanatory text for Trustword use cases, properties and + requirements + + o Further details of the IANA registry and requirements for the + expert to assess the specification + + + + + +Hoeneisen & Marques Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 14] + +Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists July 2019 + + + o Decide which ISO language code either 639-1 or 639-3 to use, i.e., + ISO-639-1 (e.g., ca, de, en, ...) as currently used in pEp + implementations (running code) or ISO-639-3 (eng, deu, ita, ...) + + o Adjust exact representation of wordlists + + * e.g. XML, CSV, ... + + * Syntax for non-ASCII letters or language symbols (UTF-8) in + Wordlists + + o Need for optional entropy value assigned to words, to account for + similar phonetics among words in the same wordlist? + + o Need for an additional field, to define what a wordlist is + optimized for, e.g., "entropy", "minimize word lengths", ...? + + o Work out (requirements for) "smart" composition of the version + number + + o Decide whether in non-bijective Wordlists the redundant words need + to be repeated in the IANA Registration + + o Register only a hash over the wordlist with IANA? + + o Does it make sense to open registrations for other patterns than + just words, e.g., images? + +Authors' Addresses + + Bernie Hoeneisen + Ucom Standards Track Solutions GmbH + CH-8046 Zuerich + Switzerland + + Phone: +41 44 500 52 40 + Email: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch (bernhard.hoeneisen AT ucom.ch) + URI: https://ucom.ch/ + + + Hernani Marques + pEp Foundation + Oberer Graben 4 + CH-8400 Winterthur + Switzerland + + Email: hernani.marques@pep.foundation + URI: https://pep.foundation/ + + + +Hoeneisen & Marques Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 15] diff --git a/pep-trustwords/archive/draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04.xml b/pep-trustwords/archive/draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04.xml new file mode 100644 index 00000000..3c976b04 --- /dev/null +++ b/pep-trustwords/archive/draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04.xml @@ -0,0 +1,1087 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + IANA Registration of Trustword Lists: Guide, Template and IANA Considerations + + + Ucom Standards Track Solutions GmbH +
+ + + CH-8046 Zuerich + Switzerland + + +41 44 500 52 40 + bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch (bernhard.hoeneisen AT ucom.ch) + https://ucom.ch/ +
+ + + pEp Foundation +
+ + Oberer Graben 4 + CH-8400 Winterthur + Switzerland + + hernani.marques@pep.foundation + https://pep.foundation/ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + +This document specifies the IANA Registration Guidelines for +Trustwords, describes corresponding registration procedures, and +provides a guideline for creating Trustword list specifications. + +Trustwords are common words in a natural language (e.g., English), +which hexadecimal strings are mapped to. Such a mapping makes +verification processes like fingerprint comparisons more practical, +and less prone to misunderstandings. + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +In public-key cryptography, comparing the respective public key +fingerprints for each of the communication partners involved is vital +to ensure that there is no Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attack on the +communication channel. These fingerprints normally consist of a chain +of hexadecimal characters, which are often impractical, cumbersome, +and prone to misunderstandings for end-users. + +To mitigate these challenges, several systems offer Trustword +comparison as an alternative to these hexadecimal strings. Trustwords +are common words in a natural language (e.g., English), which these +hexadecimal strings are mapped to. Using Trustwords makes verification +processes like fingerprint comparisons more natural for users. + +For example, in pEp’s Privacy by Default proposition +Trustwords are used to facilitate easy contact verification for +end-to-end encryption. Trustword comparison is offered after the peers +have opportunistically exchanged public keys. Examples of Trustword +lists used by current pEp implementations can be found here in CSV +format: +https://pep.foundation/dev/repos/pEpEngine/file/tip/db. + +In addition to contact verification, Trustwords are also used for +other purposes, such as Human-Readable 128-bit Keys , One +Time Passwords (OTP) , SSH host-key +verification, VPN server certificate verification, deriving private +keys in blockchain applications for cryptocurrencies, and to import or +synchronize secret keys across multiple devices owned by a single user +. Further ideas include the use of +Trustwords for private key recovery in case of loss, contact +verification in Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) +, or for X.509 certificate verification in browsers +. + +
+ +The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, +“SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this +document are to be interpreted as described in . + +
+
+ +The following terms are defined for the scope of this document: + + + pEp Handshake: The process of one user contacting another over an +independent channel in order to verify Trustwords (or by fallback: +fingerprints). This can be done in-person or through established +verbal communication channels, like a phone +call. + + + + + + Man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack: cf. , which states: “A +form of active wiretapping attack in which the attacker intercepts +and selectively modifies communicated data to masquerade as one or +more of the entities involved in a communication association.” + + +
+
+
+ +
+ +As already discussed, fingerprints normally consist of a string +of hexadecimal characters. A typical fingerprint looks like this: + + + F482 E952 2F48 618B 01BC 31DC 5428 D7FA ACDC 3F13 + + +Instead of the hexadecimal string, Trustwords allow users to +compare ten common words of a language of their choosing. For example, +the above fingerprint, mapped to English Trustwords, might appear as: + + + dog house brother town fat bath school banana kite task + + +The same fingerprint might appear in German Trustwords as: + + + klima gelb lappen weg trinken alles kaputt rasen rucksack durch + + +Note: These examples are for illustration purposes only, and are not +derived from any published Trustword list. + +
+
+ +The basic concept of Trustword mapping - also known as a biometric +word list - for fingerprint comparison is well-documented. Examples of +this concept are used with One-Time Passwords (OTP) + , as well as the PGP Word List (“Pretty Good +Privacy word list” . Furthermore, cryptocurrencies use a +similar concept for deriving private keys . + +[[ TODO: Explain each previous usage a bit further and synchronize +with section . ]] + +Regarding today’s needs, previous proposals have the following +shortcomings: + + + Small/limited Trustword dictionaries, which generally result in more +Trustwords to compare + Trustwords are usually only available in English, which limits their +usefulness for non-English speakers + + +Furthermore, there are differences in the basic concept: + + + The Trustword concept suggested herein intends to improve usability +and security for all users, instead of only the technically-savvy. + In many use cases, Trustwords are only read (aloud) during the +comparison process, rather than being written or typed. For +example, two users might compare their respective Trustwords during +a phone call. Verbal comparison reduces the need to keep the actual +Trustwords short. The use of longer Trustwords increases the +entropy within the system, as it allows for a larger dictionary, and +thus reduces the likelihood of phonetic collisions. + + +
+
+ +If the number of Trustwords in a dictionary is low, shorter parts of +the original string (e.g., fingerprint) can be mapped to a single +Trustword. Thus, many Trustwords will need to be compared, which +results in a potentially cumbersome process for users, and lead to +reduced usability. + +To reduce the number of Trustwords that need to be compared, pEp’s +Privacy by Default proposition calls for 16-bit +scalars to be mapped to natural language words. Therefore, the size +(by number of key-value pairs) of any key-value pair structure +is 65536. However, the number of unique values to be used in a +language may be smaller than this number. This discrepancy can be +addressed by using the same value, or Trustword, for more than one +key. In such cases, the entropy of the representation is slightly +reduced. For example, a Trustword list of 42000 words still allows +for an entropy of log_2(42000), which is roughly 15.36 bits in 16-bit +mappings. As a consequence such Trustword lists are not bijective. + +On the other hand, small Trustword lists allow for Trustwords +consisting of words with shorter strings (number of short words per +natural language is normally limited), which are easier to use in +implementations where Trustwords have to be typed or written, such as +in OTP applications. + +Note: This specification allows for registration of variable numbers +of Trustwords per dictionary. + +
+
+ +Although English is used around the world, the vast majority of the +global population is not English-speaking. For an application to be +useful to as wide of a user base as possible, localization is +essential. Therefore, this specification allows for registration of +Trustword lists in different languages. + +In applications where two humans are attempting to establish +secure communications, it is likely that they share a common language. +At this time, no real-world use cases for Trustword list translation +capability have been identified. Because the translation process +inherently - and drastically - increases complexity from an IANA +registration standpoint, the topic of Trustword translation is beyond +the scope of this document. + +
+
+ +Every Trustword list SHOULD be clear of offensive language (i.e., +swear/curse words, slurs, derogatory language, etc.). This process +SHOULD be performed by native speakers of each respective language. + +
+
+
+ +There are no specific security considerations. + +
+
+ +[[ TODO ]] + +
+
+ +Each natural language requires a different set of Trustwords. To allow +implementers for identical Trustword lists, a IANA registry is to be +established. The IANA registration policy according to is +“Expert Review” and “Specification Required”. + +[[ Note: Further details of the IANA registry and requirements for +the expert to assess the specification are for further study. A +similar approach as used in is likely followed. ]] + +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + first + second + [...] + last + + + + + + + + + + + + +]]>
+ +Authors of a Wordlist are encouraged to use these +XML chunks as a template to create the IANA Registration Template. + +
+
+ +An IANA registration will contain the fallowing elements: + +
+ +The language code follows the ISO 639-3 specification , +e.g., eng, deu. + +[[ Note: It is for further study, which of the ISO 639 +Specifications is most suitable to address the Trustwords’ +challenge. ]] + +Example usage for German: + +
deu +]]>
+ +
+
+ +The bit size is the number of bits that can be mapped with the +Wordlist. The number of registered words in a word list MUST be +2 ^ (<bitsize>). + +Example usage for 16-bit Wordlist: + +
16 +]]>
+ +
+
+ +The number of unique words that are registered. + +
65536 +]]>
+ +
+
+ +Whether the registered Wordlist has a one-to-one mapping, meaning the +number of unique words registered equals 2 ^ (<bitsize>). + +Valid content: ( yes | no ) + +
yes +]]>
+ +
+
+ +The version of the Wordlist MUST be unique within a language code. + +[[ Note: Requirements to a “smart” composition of the version number +are for further study ]] + +
b.1.2 +]]>
+ +
+
+ +Reference(s) to the Document(s) containing the Wordlist + +
+ + + +e.g. + (obsoleted by RFC 9999) + + + +e.g. + [International Telecommunications Union, + "Wordlist for Foobar application", + ITU-F Recommendation B.193, Release 73, Mar 2009.] + +]]>
+ +
+
+ +The persons requesting the registration of the Wordlist. Usually +these are the authors of the Wordlist. + +
+ + + + + + John Doe + Example Inc. + mailto:john.doe@example.com + 2018-06-20 + + +]]>
+ +Note: If there is more than one requester, there must be one <xref> +element per requester in the <requesters> element, and one +<person> chunk per requester in the <people> element. + +
+
+ +Any other information the authors deem interesting. + +
+ more info goes here + +]]>
+ +Note: If there is no such additional information, then the +<additionalinfo> element is omitted. + +
+
+ +The full Wordlist to be registered. The number of words MUST be a +power of 2 as specified above. The element names serve as key used for +enumeration of the Trustwords (starting at 0) and the elements +contains the values being individual natural language words in the +respective language. + +
+ first + second + [...] + last + + +] ]> +]]>
+ +[[ Note: The exact representation of the Wordlist is for further study. +]] + +
+
+
+
+ +The authors would like to thank the following people who have provided +feedback or significant contributions to the development of this +document: Andrew Sullivan, Claudio Luck, Daniel Kahn Gilmore, Kelly +Bristol, Michael Richardson, Rich Salz, Volker Birk, and Yoav Nir. + +This work was initially created by pEp Foundation, and then reviewed +and extended with funding by the Internet Society’s Beyond the Net +Programme on standardizing pEp. + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Internet Security Glossary, Version 2 + + +This Glossary provides definitions, abbreviations, and explanations of terminology for information system security. The 334 pages of entries offer recommendations to improve the comprehensibility of written material that is generated in the Internet Standards Process (RFC 2026). The recommendations follow the principles that such writing should (a) use the same term or definition whenever the same concept is mentioned; (b) use terms in their plainest, dictionary sense; (c) use terms that are already well-established in open publications; and (d) avoid terms that either favor a particular vendor or favor a particular technology or mechanism over other, competing techniques that already exist or could be developed. This memo provides information for the Internet community. + + + + + + + + + + +Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs + + + + +Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made, is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry.This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226. + + + + + + + + + + +Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels + + +In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +pretty Easy privacy (pEp): Privacy by Default + + + + + + + + + + + +The pretty Easy privacy (pEp) protocols describe a set of conventions for the automation of operations traditionally seen as barriers to the use and deployment of secure end-to-end interpersonal messaging. These include, but are not limited to, key management, key discovery, and private key handling (including peer-to-peer synchronization of private keys and other user data across devices). pEp also introduces means to verify communication peers and proposes a trust-rating system to denote secure types of communications and signal the privacy level available on a per-user and per-message level. Significantly, the pEp protocols build on already available security formats and message transports (e.g., PGP/MIME), and are written with the intent to be interoperable with already widely-deployed systems in order to facilitate and ease adoption and implementation. This document outlines the general design choices and principles of pEp. + + + + + + + + + + + +A Convention for Human-Readable 128-bit Keys + + +This memo proposes a convention for use with Internet applications & protocols using 128-bit cryptographic keys. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. + + + + + + + + + +The S/KEY One-Time Password System + + +This document describes the S/KEY* One-Time Password system as released for public use by Bellcore. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. + + + + + + + + + +A One-Time Password System + + + + + +This document describes a one-time password authentication system (OTP). The system provides authentication for system access (login) and other applications requiring authentication that is secure against passive attacks based on replaying captured reusable passwords. [STANDARDS-TRACK] + + + + + + + + + + +Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate Policy and Certification Practices Framework + + + + + + +This document presents a framework to assist the writers of certificate policies or certification practice statements for participants within public key infrastructures, such as certification authorities, policy authorities, and communities of interest that wish to rely on certificates. In particular, the framework provides a comprehensive list of topics that potentially (at the writer's discretion) need to be covered in a certificate policy or a certification practice statement. This document supersedes RFC 2527. + + + + + + + + + +IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA Considerations + + + + +This document specifies a revision of the IANA Registration Guidelines for Enumservices, describes corresponding registration procedures, and provides a guideline for creating Enumservice Specifications. [STANDARDS-TRACK] + + + + + + + + + +Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core + + +The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is an application profile of the Extensible Markup Language (XML) that enables the near-real-time exchange of structured yet extensible data between any two or more network entities. This document defines XMPP's core protocol methods: setup and teardown of XML streams, channel encryption, authentication, error handling, and communication primitives for messaging, network availability ("presence"), and request-response interactions. This document obsoletes RFC 3920. [STANDARDS-TRACK] + + + + + + + + + +pretty Easy privacy (pEp): Contact and Channel Authentication through Handshake + + + + + + + + + + + +In interpersonal messaging end-to-end encryption means for public key distribution and verification of its authenticity are needed; the latter to prevent man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks. This document proposes a new method to easily verify a public key is authentic by a Handshake process that allows users to easily authenticate their communication channel. The new method is targeted to Opportunistic Security scenarios and is already implemented in several applications of pretty Easy privacy (pEp). + + + + + + + + + + + +pretty Easy privacy (pEp): Key Synchronization Protocol + + + + + + + + + + + +Modern users of messaging systems usually have multiple devices, and often desire to send and receive encrypted messages on some or all of their devices. Using encryption on multiple devices often results in situations where messages cannot be decrypted on the device used to read the message due to a missing private key. This document specifies a protocol for secure peer-to-peer synchronization of private keys across devices belonging to the same user (pEp Key Synchronization Protocol). The pretty Easy privacy (pEp) protocols describe a set of conventions for the automation of operations traditionally seen as barriers to the use and deployment of secure end-to-end interpersonal messaging. These include, but are not limited to, key management, key discovery, and private key handling. + + + + + + + + + + + PGP word list + + + + + + + + + Seed Phrase + + + + + + + + + Language codes - ISO 639 + + + + + + + + + Beyond the Net. 12 Innovative Projects Selected for Beyond the Net Funding. Implementing Privacy via Mass Encryption: Standardizing pretty Easy privacy’s protocols + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +This section contains a non-normative example of the IANA Registration +Template XML chunk. + +
+ lat + 16 + 57337 + no + n.0.1 + + + + + + + + + This Wordlist has been optimized for + the Roman Standards Process. + + + + errare + humanum + [...] + est + + + + + + Julius Caesar + Curia Romana + mailto:julius.cesar@example.com + 1999-12-31 + + +]]>
+ +
+
+ +[[ RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication ]] + + + draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04: + + Add Privacy Considerations section + Swapped Security and IANA Consideration Sections + Corrected typo in ISO references + Updated Introduction, Terms and concept Sections + + draft-birk-pep-trustwords-03: + + Update references + Minor edits + + draft-birk-pep-trustwords-02: + + Minor editorial changes and bug fixes + Added more items to Open Issues + Add usage example + + draft-birk-pep-trustwords-01: + + Included feedback from mailing list and IETF-101 SECDISPATCH WG, +e.g. + + Added more explanatory text / less focused on the main use case + Bit size as parameter + + Explicitly stated translations are out-of-scope for this document + Added draft IANA XML Registration template, +considerations, explanation and examples + Added Changelog to Appendix + Added Open Issue section to Appendix + + + +
+
+ +[[ RFC Editor: This section should be empty and is to be removed + before publication. ]] + + + Better explain previous work on Trustwords + More explanatory text for Trustword use cases, properties and +requirements + Further details of the IANA registry and requirements for the expert +to assess the specification + Decide which ISO language code either 639-1 or 639-3 to use, i.e., +ISO-639-1 (e.g., ca, de, en, …) as currently used in pEp +implementations (running code) or ISO-639-3 (eng, deu, ita, …) + Adjust exact representation of wordlists + + e.g. XML, CSV, … + Syntax for non-ASCII letters or language symbols (UTF-8) in +Wordlists + + Need for optional entropy value assigned to words, to account for +similar phonetics among words in the same wordlist? + Need for an additional field, to define what a wordlist is optimized +for, e.g., “entropy”, “minimize word lengths”, …? + Work out (requirements for) “smart” composition of the version +number + Decide whether in non-bijective Wordlists the redundant words need +to be repeated in the IANA Registration + Register only a hash over the wordlist with IANA? + Does it make sense to open registrations for other patterns than +just words, e.g., images? + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + diff --git a/pep-trustwords/draft-birk-pep-trustwords.mkd b/pep-trustwords/draft-birk-pep-trustwords.mkd index a1ba2af8..77049a06 100644 --- a/pep-trustwords/draft-birk-pep-trustwords.mkd +++ b/pep-trustwords/draft-birk-pep-trustwords.mkd @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ coding: utf-8 title: "IANA Registration of Trustword Lists: Guide, Template and IANA Considerations" abbrev: IANA Registration of Trustword Lists -docname: draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04 +docname: draft-birk-pep-trustwords-05 category: std stand_alone: yes