diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | archive/2021-11-16--meeting-minutes | 69 |
1 files changed, 69 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/archive/2021-11-16--meeting-minutes b/archive/2021-11-16--meeting-minutes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..762d40b --- /dev/null +++ b/archive/2021-11-16--meeting-minutes @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +Date: 2021-11-16, 1300 CET +Meet: https://meet.sigsum.org/sigsum +Chair: rgdd + +Agenda + * Hello + * Status round + * Discuss + * Next steps + +Hello + * rgdd + * ln5 + * rohonk + +Status round + * [rgdd et al.] brief summary of in-person meet last week + * https://git.sigsum.org/sigsum/tree/archive/2021-11-16-in-person-meet-pad + * [rgdd] proposal: open-ended shard interval + * https://git.sigsum.org/sigsum/tree/doc/proposals/2021-11-open-ended-shard-interval.md + * [rgdd] proposal: remove arbitrary bytes in leaf structure + * https://git.sigsum.org/sigsum/tree/doc/proposals/2021-11-remove-arbitrary-bytes.md + * [ln5] proposal: use SSH signing format for leaves and tree heads + * https://git.sigsum.org/sigsum/tree/doc/proposals/2021-11-ssh-signature-format.md + * [rohonk] looking into possible proof methods, like formal verification with Tamarin + +Discuss + * Update meeting structure? + * Hello, status round, decisions, next steps? + * "More focused meeting, discuss more after and/or async" + * "Max 50 minutes, probably less" + * Decision: rgdd will propose an updated meeting structure + * Life cycle for documents in doc/proposal + * Keep? Merge into main docs? Annotate aborted, implemented, etc? + * Decision: + * Keep proposal files + * Add a status line if helpful, e.g., "implemented, "aborted", etc. + * Move relevant parts of proposal to main documentation if status "implement" + * Use SSH signing format for leaves and tree heads + * Expand on changes to api endpoints in api.md + * Expand on output from openssh tooling + * Include that proposal includes switching from Ed25519 -> Ed25519ph w/ SHA256 + * Open questions + * Move shard hint from struct statement to namespace field in SSH signed data? + * (In particular, would that make the signing procedure easier or not?) + * Some agility, but should be separate and not part of this proposal + * Security proof + * Q: Consider possible vulnerabilities in algorithms as part of security proof? + * No, security analysis of protocol so assume e.g. signature scheme with prop X + * Q: Would it be a good idea to use a formal tool like Tamarin/Proferif? + * Maybe, this paper might be helpful for rohonk to explore that possibility: + * https://people.cispa.io/cas.cremers/downloads/papers/ccsfp200s-cremersA.pdf + * Step 1: parameters, setup, properties to prove + * Step 2: select proof method, could be tamarin or something else like pen&paper + * Decisions about any open design TODOs? + * See above proposals + * See (3) in deferred item from in-person meet + * Also need to think about better terminology for "signer" and "verifier" + * Defer until next week, everyone reads in advance to be prepared + +Next steps + * [everyone] read and think about open design TODOs + * [ln5] ssh signing format proposal, and give rgdd access to sigsum systems + * [rgdd] propose updated meeting structure + * [rohonk] continued work on security proof and proof techniques + +Other useful links + * [kfreds] brief intro to singing with ssh tooling + * https://www.agwa.name/blog/post/ssh_signatures |