IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [AVTCORE] Are thare any existing uses of CCM mode in SRTP?

"Wyss, Felix" <Felix.Wyss@inin.com> Fri, 27 February 2015 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <Felix.Wyss@inin.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C631A0019 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:19:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 cpbjxgJTVPdo for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:19:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0083.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 302391A00BD for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:19:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CY1PR0501MB1578.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.161.161.152) by CY1PR0501MB1435.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.148.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.93.16; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 20:19:41 +0000
Received: from CY1PR0501MB1579.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.161.161.153) by CY1PR0501MB1578.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.161.161.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.93.16; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 20:19:40 +0000
Received: from CY1PR0501MB1579.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([25.161.161.153]) by CY1PR0501MB1579.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([25.161.161.153]) with mapi id 15.01.0093.004; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 20:19:40 +0000
From: "Wyss, Felix" <Felix.Wyss@inin.com>
To: "Igoe, Kevin M." <kmigoe@nsa.gov>, "'avt@ietf.org'" <avt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Are thare any existing uses of CCM mode in SRTP?
Thread-Index: AdBSySZw1rAEskNLRrukGWoZmrPASAAALbWg
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 20:19:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CY1PR0501MB157980767FE35011716B4257EB150@CY1PR0501MB1579.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <3C4AAD4B5304AB44A6BA85173B4675CABC7F0078@MSMR-GH1-UEA03.corp.nsa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <3C4AAD4B5304AB44A6BA85173B4675CABC7F0078@MSMR-GH1-UEA03.corp.nsa.gov>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [107.147.12.61]
authentication-results: nsa.gov; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1578;UriScan:;
inin-custom-wld: WL-D
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY1PR0501MB15781F40D44C8B410A7B2C6786150@CY1PR0501MB1578.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1578;
x-forefront-prvs: 05009853EF
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(164054003)(51704005)(13464003)(99286002)(15975445007)(77156002)(62966003)(86362001)(74316001)(122556002)(102836002)(40100003)(76576001)(87936001)(19580405001)(2950100001)(19580395003)(2900100001)(107886001)(92566002)(33656002)(66066001)(76176999)(2656002)(46102003)(54356999)(50986999)(491001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1578; H:CY1PR0501MB1579.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 Feb 2015 20:19:40.4360 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 8d07eb62-a903-4bae-bcc2-66c244e76b27
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR0501MB1578
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1435;
X-OriginatorOrg: inin.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/JVEz5ngtc8-j7eQ72XSk8sMjFBM>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Are thare any existing uses of CCM mode in SRTP?
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 20:19:58 -0000

I am very much in favor of removing CCM.  

Something I would like to ask for, though: Could you *please* add test vectors to the RFC?  As an implementer, having meaningful test vectors greatly helps in development and testing.  IMHO test vectors should be a MUST requirement for any RFCs describing cryptographic protocols.

Thanks,
--Felix

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avt [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Igoe, Kevin M.
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 15:08
> To: 'avt@ietf.org'
> Subject: [AVTCORE] Are thare any existing uses of CCM mode in SRTP?
> 
> Despite its name, the ID draft-avtcore-srtp aes-gcm actually supports two (2)
> AEAD  modes of operation, GCM and CCM.  There are known GCM based
> developments underway, but  at a telechat held yesterday to discuss this ID
> it became apparent that no one participating in the chat was aware of ANY
> use of CCM in SRTP.  Hence it was suggested we purge CCM from the current
> ID
> 
> This is a call to the mailing list to see if anyone is aware of any concrete
> existing projects underway that use CCM mode in SRTP.  If there are none,
> CCM will be eliminated from the current ID.
> 
> (Note that if at some date in the future someone wishes to deploy CCM in
> SRTP, a simple cut and paste from previous drafts of the current ID can be
> used to craft a new CCM only ID.)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status