IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] RFC4307 update

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 09 October 2015 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 891E31B43FC for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 08:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id co49mHQxRi-U for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 08:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E0041A907F for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 08:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3nXYb36nRHzHY9; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:43:27 +0200 (CEST)
Authentication-Results: mx.nohats.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca header.i=@nohats.ca header.b=COnLzbkl
X-OPENPGPKEY: Message passed unmodified
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xV31qSNwiHUC; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:43:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:43:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5873C80300; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:43:26 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1444405406; bh=c/0qovC23WY0pRnvDh6lnjyHqskn+aNVm0oaA9JG2iY=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=COnLzbkl8Y8yVxDuXT/nJC/IMajNvuWvvhmUUKnk9JgKLdACkafhKEF/mrYhqFqlS Ti6wVAdFFo8XqFDqd0pIBnRTuQuve8sFlTZnlihHrLzzbW8CCyJbwiYCfD/gSLx/UX Age5m+VERq0OpVjFHsM1r/AuNjKz9mka6X7d7fqM=
Received: from localhost (paul@localhost) by bofh.nohats.ca (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id t99FhPBC013756; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:43:26 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: bofh.nohats.ca: paul owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:43:25 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5617DA63.5050008@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1510091141590.10019@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <22025.15464.790587.801082@fireball.acr.fi> <DB65A659-5FDD-4AE6-8470-EE45CE75DA7E@vpnc.org> <1FA0BD51-A1ED-4A9B-A8BB-5DB9BBB492BE@gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.2.20.1510090805280.429@bofh.nohats.ca> <CADZyTknjdRZ1ZTaX5pwyAQYMFd=j_UP_7jfbLKhb_M2sPhTA+Q@mail.gmail.com> <7F78DEC3-FBF4-4BFC-831C-0F1216D51F18@gmail.com> <5617DA63.5050008@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LFD 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/1F5h4j-dP5dLPCCAqg4iqgjjYFE>
Cc: IPsecME WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] RFC4307 update
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 15:43:30 -0000

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Yaron Sheffer wrote:

> RFC 4307 just barely mentions key lengths, by implying that ENCR_AES_CBC 
> really means AES-128-CBC. I think the new document should be clear about 
> recommended key lengths for the relevant algorithms. This may be opening a 
> can of worms, but you don't have interoperability without it.

If we do, I suggest recommending 128/256 and demoting 192 to MAY. No one
uses 192 that I know, although I dont enter TLA datacenters much :P

Paul

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status