Re: [Cfrg] [IANA #807002] Conflict Review requested for draft-irtf-cfrg-chacha20-poly1305
Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 17 February 2015 09:39 UTC
Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
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 8B8671A0545; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 01:39:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 bu5yPAaV-Ina; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 01:39:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x22c.google.com (mail-we0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1B061A1A80; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 01:39:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k48so33798636wev.3; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 01:39:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=AQxEeRLsm9mu82pgWPZG00ybYRoQ0g8XbrWQGCEs/pc=; b=Z9TnDR46reR5bujwLppAnz8+M8qcxWSy2kWk53t+YSEGi43peS+/px9tS1grwo01vL /v93uDTyeD21JApfBlKrFbxceYpB7cRs5hcrPuRWOQvd29r29zQXFMVf38Y09TIgoqUe W9m/qv0ps1m3xrk6iRlT9TumHgRPURWKSfOtM5ydAncyyf5AU3lKhx43SdRA7IMIEeSU jJ1lnXJqTft6csq4aMjOjqawFYb3iQz9V8siYdu0o2OZZEP9epH6gvORULUhP3nGAW3Q wy1m3UyXH25Tprhk4kV/PmB6DaZagh+mdb/UC8Ay2HI8f3tKqFbWK7hMq/vqb8cvVkTO KZbw==
X-Received: by 10.180.198.101 with SMTP id jb5mr53743994wic.92.1424165994193; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 01:39:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.24.251.208] (dyn32-131.checkpoint.com. [194.29.32.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gm2sm13272127wib.5.2015.02.17.01.39.52 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 01:39:53 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150217075216.6259935f@chromobil.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:39:50 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0B311C17-32B3-4E07-A085-91F6FA14BA4E@gmail.com>
References: <RT-Ticket-807002@icann.org> <20150203100029.14793.43971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <rt-4.2.9-17455-1424124917-809.807002-7-0@icann.org> <AC8A31A6-03C3-4B5E-86E3-E5C80C6DD21E@gmail.com> <20150217075216.6259935f@chromobil.localdomain>
To: Stefan Bühler <source@stbuehler.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/LsC94ub99DV6-JElz9MXo8r-rkI>
Cc: drafts-eval@iana.org, cfrg-chairs@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org, draft-irtf-cfrg-chacha20-poly1305.all@ietf.org, irsg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] [IANA #807002] Conflict Review requested for draft-irtf-cfrg-chacha20-poly1305
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: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:39:57 -0000
On Feb 17, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Stefan Bühler <source@stbuehler.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 00:28:22 +0200 > Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi. >> >> RFC 5116 makes no statement about what characters are allowed for >> names in this registry. The only requirement is for names to begin >> with “AEAD_”. Additionally, these names are not used in any protocol, >> so the risk of having parsers making assumptions is very low. >> >> The reason this name contains a hyphen is to distinguish parameters >> and modes of operation that are separated by underscored (such as >> AEAD_AES_128_GCM, where 128 is the key length and GCM is the mode of >> operation), from combinations of algorithms that we separated by a >> hyphen. That same algorithms might have been named AEAD_AES_128-GHASH >> instead. Since there is no mode of operation associated with >> Poly1305, we instead used the hyphen notation. >> >> I don’t believe this makes much of a difference either way, so if >> others believe it should be replaced with an underscore, that’s fine >> with me. > > I think many implementations will try to use the name as identifier, > and most languages won't allow hyphens as part of that - so I'd replace > it with an underscore to have consistent names. I’m fine with that as well.