Re: [Cfrg] A little room for AES-192 in TLS?

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

On 17 Jan 2017, at 16:48, Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> acknowledge adding ciphers is not a zero effort, but to describe it as complex
>> is inaccurate.
> 
> We disagree.
> 
> You can write up an individual RFC that defines AES192 ciphers for use in TLS, and ask IANA to register them, and then "let the market decide."  I suggest you focus on a couple, and not try for full parity by defining a couple of dozen, as the registrar is likely to reject it.
> 
> Or you can keep posting here (and as previously pointed out, more appropriately the TLS list) and see if you can convince anyone.

An individual RFC (or even an RFC from the TLS WG) is no substitute for convincing people.  There are over 8000 RFCs. None of us implement all of them.

So an AES-192 RFC won’t cause universal support for these ciphersuites any more that RFC 6209 caused universal support for ARIA.

He can even donate code to OpenSSL (AES-192 already exists, but you need the ciphersuites) but he still need to convince people (you?) to (i) accept it and (ii) make it part of the default or “strong” or whatever the recommended configuration is called these days.

And he’ll need to convince browser maintainers to add it to the browsers. And then there’s the other dozens of implementations.

If you want a technology implemented and deployed, you still need to convince a lot of people. RFCs are (relatively) easy.

Yoav