Clarifications for the ballot draft

From: Steven J. Dovich (dovich@cadence.com)
Date: Wed Feb 09 2005 - 13:07:34 PST

  • Next message: Shalom Bresticker: "Re: Clarifications for the ballot draft"

    After a conversation with Shalom, Tom Fitzpatrick, and Neil Korpusik,
    we identified a set of clarifications that are intended to bettter
    reflect the intent of the Encryption Committee. Shalom needs these
    changes by the end of today in order to reflect them into the final
    draft for ballot circulation. Further issues and changes will need
    to be applied following ballot resolution, for the recirculation.

    With the consent of the committee (please object to any portion you
    wish to discuss in committee before incorporation into the draft),
    Shalom will update the final ballot draft with the attached changes.
    Any items that for which an objection is expressed should not be
    applied to the draft, and we will consider that issue for the
    recirculation.

    I appreciate the committee's review on such short notice, and will
    understand if anyone feels that action should be deferred until
    the recirculation. However if there is consensus that these
    changes are non-controversial, the ballot review should go much
    more smoothly.

    /sjd


    Encryption changes

    1. To address the questions raised in I015, add the following text at the end of the 3rd paragraph of 28.2.1 "Encryption":

    Encryption algorithms that use the same key to encrypt  cleartext and decrypt the corresponding ciphetext are  said to be symmetric. Algorithms that require a different keys to encrypt and decrypt are said to be asymmetric. This description may be applied to both the algorithm, and to the key.

    In Table 28-1 (for data_decrypt_key and digest_decrypt_key),  replace:

     encryption session key

    with:

    encryption session key

    1. To clarify the conformance expectations (see I006), add the following paragraph immediately befor 28.2.1 "Encryption":

    Tools that process the Verilog HDL shall perform  envelope decryption for all decryption envelopes  contained in the source text, where the proper key  is supplied by the user. Tools that perform envelope  encryption shall only be required to process the protect pragma directives, and shall apply no other interpretation to text which is not part of a protect  pragma directive.

    1. To help resolve questions raised in I014, replace the the sub-clause title:

    28.3 Envelope Directives

    with:

    28.3 Envelope Directives protect Pragma Directive

    and replace sub-clause title:

    28.3.1 Envelope encoding keywords

    with:

    28.3.1 Envelope encoding keywords protect Pragma Keywords

    1. To partially resolve I012, replace the first paragraph in 28.2.2 "Decryption" with:

    Verilog tools that support decrypting compilation shall transform source text containing decryption envelopes by replacing each decryption envelope with the decrypted source text according to the specified pragma expressions. This substitution shall occur in a manner similar to and at a translation phase consistent with that of macro substitution. Unless otherwise specified, occurrences of the protect pragma directive shall not be included in the decrypted source text which replaces the decryption envelope.

    Verilog tools that support decrypting compilation shall transform source text containing decryption envelopes by replacing each decryption envelope with the decrypted source text from the data_block, according to the specified pragma expressions. The substituted text may contain usages of text macros, which shall be substituted after replacement of the decryption envelope. The substituted text may also contain decryption envelopes which shall be decrypted and substituted after replacement  of their enclosing decryption envelope.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 09 2005 - 12:49:16 PST and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.