IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] Second RGLC on "AES-GCM-SIV"

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 16 January 2018 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C198312EAE0 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:13:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 657KD9FsqgNO for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:13:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7B7A12EADA for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:13:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F6353005D6 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:13:37 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 3gG4Z6wUSzhf for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:13:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from new-host-7.home (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC5C930044D; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:13:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <0E5AE585-93AD-4B01-B69B-2E8EB19DC9B4@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_644D9FF4-1FB1-4267-90DE-1E71FF4AB01A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:13:34 -0500
In-Reply-To: <E16F508E-7C08-4DB2-A570-DDACC162F435@rhul.ac.uk>
Cc: IRTF CFRG <cfrg@irtf.org>
To: Kenny Paterson <Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
References: <E16F508E-7C08-4DB2-A570-DDACC162F435@rhul.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/9Q5EpFO4KKWIH6a0AeDkYRRImME>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Second RGLC on "AES-GCM-SIV"
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 20:13:41 -0000

I think that the IRTF should publish this document as an RFC.

Russ


On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Paterson, Kenny <Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk <mailto:Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk>> wrote:
Dear CFRG participants,

This message starts a second 2-week RGLC on "AES-GCM-SIV: Nonce Misuse-Resistant Authenticated Encryption" (draft-irtf-cfrg-gcmsiv-07), that will end on January 30th. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-gcmsiv <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-gcmsiv> for the latest version of the draft.

We are having a second last call because, although there only were small changes to the draft in going from 06 to 07, we also had the benefit of new security analysis on the draft:

http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~tessaro/papers/BHT17.pdf <http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~tessaro/papers/BHT17.pdf>

We also had some productive discussion on the benefits of using POLYVAL versus GHASH during the previous last call period, with the thread beginning at:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg09333.html <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg09333.html>


Please send your comments, as well as expression of support to publish as an RFC (or possible reasons for not doing so) in reply to this message or directly to CFRG chairs. Your feedback will help chairs to decide whether the document is ready for review by IRSG and subsequent publication as an RFC.

Thank you,

Alexey and Kenny

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email