Re: [Cfrg] Closing out tls1.3 "Limits on key usage" PRs (#765/#769).

"Dang, Quynh (Fed)" <> Wed, 01 March 2017 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A951012940C for <>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 06:31:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bfreq7w10WzH for <>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 06:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 295ED12954C for <>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 06:31:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1-nist-gov; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=M2g1eztAId+QHNq5+KMh9itnFJFl574ik456g/jR1tI=; b=NUKcLiHSL8XgSJ2oI/LrdfNH6vew64bmAu143dNrI15fb9q6UeY9nbS7Vyvxi0sG0jL1l8aVhYR9vFrrJ0lS2stzY9JQ+O0fsUiOuZcjnSfsk1ueaNOQ3xvRxvxIA5RtVHf5PFA37XfdgtYEHDFRJeojHRG2GWq43iGjWKwvEY0=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.933.12; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:31:31 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0933.016; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:31:30 +0000
From: "Dang, Quynh (Fed)" <>
To: Aaron Zauner <>, "Dang, Quynh (Fed)" <>
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] Closing out tls1.3 "Limits on key usage" PRs (#765/#769).
Thread-Index: AQHSj3N1z8IXvDyfJEuMUkRo/k0w1KF/+8GA//+uQQCAAGYzgP//rheA
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:31:30 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
authentication-results:; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;; dmarc=none action=none;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: []
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY4PR09MB1461; 7:LlIukQqq6F7mxgo0E8/8lKsyrcbaT3WQYyLDe9SpStnV1mIOZGGRwlQCt9S5gQ+nwH2+4ncBCXxd9USsAaet/GmqohO+QJReDdwBqSBvr2tTogtA+o6cqud+gI7aawRj8mjPRHOy1g1woWY1QebkkKo16/lzvTUoA1kts4JeDKFhA0qabzeWwz0nfRXO7Sp6K2LZ3xzhNN2oJ2BxxCZIU5ce7k9YyhWgyqxn1haxY0hYMEMdKuaX+ZeXcaBmTRvzwZvGqQ5nKp+H6NQXK9ddqwva0Mq34N6ziGUmLA5Kc9JgL66LCKGsQaL20Rc+Kw0+kCCasWv+7l7Dw78HJ1z6gQ==
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:SKI; SCL:-1SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(7916002)(39860400002)(39840400002)(39450400003)(39410400002)(39850400002)(24454002)(377454003)(6506006)(6436002)(122556002)(66066001)(2900100001)(229853002)(2906002)(83506001)(102836003)(77096006)(81166006)(54906002)(54896002)(6512007)(3280700002)(25786008)(8936002)(92566002)(8676002)(36756003)(6116002)(99286003)(3846002)(236005)(54356999)(6486002)(76176999)(50986999)(93886004)(6246003)(7736002)(86362001)(106116001)(53546006)(189998001)(38730400002)(3660700001)(53936002)(2950100002)(5660300001)(4326008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY4PR09MB1461;; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a4c94d87-d5ce-4d9c-986e-08d460afa711
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(48565401081); SRVR:CY4PR09MB1461;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(65766998875637);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(20161123558025)(6072148); SRVR:CY4PR09MB1461; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY4PR09MB1461;
x-forefront-prvs: 0233768B38
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D4DC4473311F2qdangnistgov_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Mar 2017 14:31:30.1271 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2ab5d82f-d8fa-4797-a93e-054655c61dec
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR09MB1461
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IRTF CFRG <>, "<>" <>, Sean Turner <>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Closing out tls1.3 "Limits on key usage" PRs (#765/#769).
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:31:35 -0000

From: Aaron Zauner <<>>
Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 9:24 AM
To: 'Quynh' <<>>
Cc: Sean Turner <<>>, "<<>>" <<>>, IRTF CFRG <<>>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Closing out tls1.3 "Limits on key usage" PRs (#765/#769).

On 01 Mar 2017, at 13:18, Dang, Quynh (Fed) <<>> wrote:
From: Aaron Zauner <<>>
Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 8:11 AM
To: 'Quynh' <<>>
Cc: Sean Turner <<>>, "<<>>" <<>>, IRTF CFRG <<>>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Closing out tls1.3 "Limits on key usage" PRs (#765/#769).
On 25 Feb 2017, at 14:28, Dang, Quynh (Fed) <<>> wrote:
Hi Sean, Joe, Eric and all,
I would like to address my thoughts/suggestions on 2 issues in option a.
1) The data limit should be addressed in term of blocks, not records. When the record size is not the full size, some user might not know what to do. When the record size is 1 block, the limit of 2^24.5 blocks (records) is way too low unnecessarily for the margin of 2^-60.  In that case, 2^34.5 1-block records is the limit which still achieves the margin of 2^-60.
I respectfully disagree. TLS deals in records not in blocks, so in the end any semantic change here will just confuse implementors, which isn't a good idea in my opinion.
Over the discussion of the PRs, the preference was blocks.

I don't see a clear preference. I see Brian Smith suggested switching to blocks to be more precise in a PR. But in general it seems to me that "Option A" was preferred in this thread anyhow - so these PRs aren't relevant? I'm not sure that text on key-usage limits in blocks in a spec that fundamentally deals in records is less confusing, quite the opposite (at least to me). As I pointed out earlier: I strongly recommend that any changes to the spec are as clear als possible to engineers (non-crypto/math people) -- e.g. why the spec is suddenly dealing in blocks instead of records et cetera. Again; I really don't see any reason to change text here - to me all suggested changes are even more confusing.

Hi Aaron,

The  technical reasons I explained are reasons for using records. I don’t see how that is confusing.

If you like records, then the record number = the total blocks / the record size in blocks: this is simplest already.