IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] options (was: Re: Adoption of draft-agl-cfrgcurve-00 as a RG document)

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 09 January 2015 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40C11A8951 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 08:09:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=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 2mwpCe-Ja0GZ for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 08:09:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E64051A872E for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 08:09:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-91.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.91]) (authenticated bits=0) by proper.com (8.15.1/8.14.7) with ESMTPSA id t09G93hK043619 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 09:09:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: proper.com: Host 50-1-98-91.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.91] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <54AFA179.4010403@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 08:09:02 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9AF74D70-8742-4E03-AF88-CA5BA3EEF96D@vpnc.org>
References: <54AAE2CA.1080701@isode.com> <54AEF855.4090100@brainhub.org> <CACsn0cm01o4vhwwzs_WNpLq6vnA_cBchvLNS+Eyg5YZH_hQyMg@mail.gmail.com> <54AF1C99.5070308@brainhub.org> <54AFA179.4010403@cs.tcd.ie>
To: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/AAW-VtQI-MinTLM0yBytg899lxs>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] options (was: Re: Adoption of draft-agl-cfrgcurve-00 as a RG document)
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 16:09:06 -0000

+1 to everything Stephen said about "please don't give us options unless you explain them very clearly, and maybe not even then". IPsec implementers and, more importantly, users have suffered badly over the past two decades due to excessive optionality, particularly in the crypto. TLS has this problem too, of course.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status