P1735DraftDevelMinutes2013Jul29 < P1735

P1735 Web>P1735PublicDocuments>P1735DraftDevelMinutes2013Jul29 (2013-07-29, StevenDovich) (raw view)EditAttach
---++ IEEE P1735 Draft Development Committee Meeting of July 29, 2013

---+++ Meeting Info

[[P1735MeetingInfo][Conference Bridge and Live-Meeting]]

---+++ Participants

   * Attending 
      * Steven Dovich, (chair) Cadence _DR_
      * Dave Graubart, Synopsys _DR_
      * Ray Martin, Xilinx _DR_
      * John Shields, Mentor _DR_
      * Dave Clemans, Synopsys _DRA_

   * Not Attending 
      * Jeff Fox, Altera _DR_
      * Michael Smith, Synopsys _DRA_
      * Jarek Kaczynski, Aldec _DR_
      * Devin Sundaram, Altera _DRA_
      * Joe Daniels, P1735 Technical Editor
      * Krista Gluchoski, IEEE Professional Services
      * Parminder Gill, Synopsys _DRA_
      * Premduth Vidyanandan, Xilinx
      * Nick Sgoupis, CAST
      * Albert Chiang, Synopsys
      * Nitin Khurana, Cadence _DRA_
      * David Pena, Cadence
      * Bin Dai, Xilinx
      * Ruchi Tyagi, Cadence _DRA_
      * Syed Huq, Cisco
      * Meera Srinivasan, Synopsys
      * David Tran, Synopsys

---+++ Agenda

   1 [[http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf][Patent slides]]
   1 [[P1735ReviewComments][Comment and Open Issue]] review
   1 Adjourn

---+++ Minutes

---++++ Patent Policy

The [[http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf][Patent slides]] were offered for review.

No new claims were disclosed at the call for essential patent claims.

---+++ Comment and Open Issue review

---++++ Interoperability
Analysis from Jarek regarding algorithm recommendations:
<blockquote>
| *Algorithm (key length)* | *Operation* | *Security* | *NIST recommendation* | *P1735 recommendation*  |
| DES | Encryption/Decryption | Compromised | Disallowed | Legacy-use |
| 3DES(TDEA) 3 keys version | Encryption/Decryption | Secure | Acceptable | Recommended?Deprecated? |
| AES (128 and 256) | Encryption/Decryption | Secure | Acceptable | Recommended |
| RSA (&lt;2048) | Encryption/Signing | Questionable | Disallowed | Deprecated? |
| RSA (&lt;2048) | Decryption/Verification | Questionable | Legacy-use | Deprecated? |
| RSA (&gt;=2048) | All operations | Secure | Acceptable | Recommended |
| MD4 | Hashing | Compromised | Disallowed | Legacy-use |
| MD5 | Hashing | Compromised | Disallowed | Legacy-use |
| SHA-1 | Hashing - signatures | Questionable | Legacy-use | Deprecated? |
| SHA-2 (SHA-256,512) | Hashing | Secure | Acceptable | Recommended |
</blockquote>

The working group converged on defining deprecation as only supported for use in Version 0 envelopes. The intention is that Version 1 and 2 will only use the algorithms identified as Recommended. That approach has the benefit of not conflicting with existing LRM requirements, but puts them in a context of legacy use with limitations.

---++++ Visibility
John summarized the HDL semantics and cases where restricting visibility for protected IP is necessary. Ray suggested a dual distribution requirement with both a viewport-enabled and a viewport-disabled version. John noted that would not resolve all the cases.

The case with the fewest options for solution is instantiation of an open interface from within a protected envelope. End-users then have the ability to create a replacement definition that supports the interface semantics and extracts pathnames (and other discoverable attributes?) from the hierarchy that goes through the protected envelope.

Dave's suggestion from last week of an additional right seemed attractive.  The group discussed whether that should be a common right or a tool-specific right.  Steven suggested that defining it as a common right where the only defined value was "delegated" would give us a migration path to the desired result, even if we cannot completely articulate that for this version of the standard.  That would rely on tool-specific rights which address the desired behaviors.

Steven asked the working group to consider a single common right with a delegated value as a crude fallback if defining a more comprehensive rights framework would take longer to achieve consensus.  John thought he could define something more detailed based on the verbal consensus and his understanding of the problem.  Since this is the long-pole in the schedule, John agreed to provide Steven a completion estimate so the PAR revision could be submitted.

---+++ Work Plan

| Date | Clause | Title | Champion | Status |
| 7/15 | 1 | Intro | Steven | |
| 7/8 | 2 | Normative Ref | ? | |
| 7/12 | 3 | Definitions | ? | |
| 7/16 | 4 | Trust | Steven | |
| 7/19 | 5 | Interop | Ray | |
| 7/17 | 6 | Key Mgmt | Steven | |
| 6/21 | 7 | Rights Mgmt | Dave G | done |
| 7/8 | 8 | License Mgmt | Dave G | |
| 6/28 | 9 | Common Rights | John | done |
| 7/10 | 10 | Visibility | John | |
| 7/8 | A | Bibliography | ? | |
| 6/28 | B | Required Algorithms | ? | |
| 4/25 | X | Visbility Annex | John | done |

---+++ Next Meeting

The next [[P1735MeetingInfo][Draft Development Committee meeting]] is scheduled for August 12, 2013 at 16:00UTC.

*Tentative Agenda*
   1 [[http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf][Patent slides]]
   1 Comment and Open Issue review
   1 Adjourn

---++++ Adjournment

Meeting adjourned at 16:35UTC

---+++ Approval

These minutes are unapproved.

-- Main.StevenDovich - 2013-07-29
Topic revision: r2 - 2013-07-29 - 19:20:53 - StevenDovich
P1735