Re: [Cfrg] Adopting "AES-GCM-SIV: Nonce Misuse-Resistant Authenticated Encryption" as a CFRG document ---- Some clarifications

Hi,

Sorry to continue this discussion, but I'm still dubious on the
consideration of AES-GCM-SIV. I think there are two questions here:
- the first one is why do we need to push an AEAD now, while the CAESAR
competition will lead to a selected portfolio in a few years ?
- the second is if we really want to have an AEAD now, why looking at
AES-GCM-SIV only, while there are candidates from the CAESAR competitions
(that have probably been much more analysed than AES-GCM-SIV and thus
present a direct important advantage) ?

I understand the explanations for the first point (considering an AEAD now
doesn't preclude from having CAESAR candidates later as well), but I don't
understand for the second point. Why do we need to wait for the end of
CAESAR competition before considering CAESAR candidates instead of
AES-GCM-SIV ? I believe we should at least take a short look at the current
algorithms available now, and not only AES-GCM-SIV ?

Cheers,

Thomas.

2016-04-20 16:37 GMT+08:00 Paterson, Kenny <Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk>:

> Hi
>
> On 20/04/2016 03:13, "Cfrg on behalf of Taylor R Campbell"
> <cfrg-bounces@irtf.org on behalf of campbell+cfrg@mumble.net> wrote:
> >
> >The creators of AES-GCM-SIV and chairs of the CFRG evidently decided
> >that it would be better to sidestep the competition and endorse crypto
> >that is, lacking hardware support, either unusably slow or vulnerable
> >to timing side channels, recommending it for general-purpose use on
> >the internet.
>
> As we said right back at the start, CFRG adopting AES-GCM-SIV does not
> preclude us from also adopting other algorithms when they eventually
> emerge from the CAESAR process. Indeed, we look forward to that happening.
> There's certainly nothing definitive or final about AES-GCM-SIV as far as
> we are concerned.
>
> Moreover, as chairs, we do not "endorse" anything, nor are we deliberately
> side-stepping the CAESAR competition. Rather, we have the difficult task
> of attempting to balance the interests and needs of some participants in
> the group against those of others.
>
> It's fine that you disagree on where we've struck the balance in this
> case, but please do understand that these decisions are not black and
> white.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kenny
>
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Cfrg mailing list
> >Cfrg@irtf.org
> >https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>