Re: [Cfrg] Authenticated Encryption with AES-CBC and HMAC-SHA, version 01

Have you looked at the algorithm in RFC 6476?  While the discussion is CMS-specific, the algorithm could be used with another syntax.

Russ

On Nov 12, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Mike Jones wrote:

> As background, if there was a version of this spec that did not assume that the parameters would be concatenated together in a specific way, but left them as independent inputs and outputs, as AES GCM and AES CTR do, it would be a better match for JOSE’s use case.
>  
>                                                             -- Mike
>  
> From: cfrg-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:cfrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of David McGrew (mcgrew)
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:21 AM
> To: cfrg@irtf.org; jose@ietf.org
> Subject: [Cfrg] Authenticated Encryption with AES-CBC and HMAC-SHA, version 01
>  
> Hi,
>  
> There is a new version of "Authenticated Encryption with AES-CBC and HMAC-SHA", and I would appreciate your review.   It is online at <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcgrew-aead-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2/?include_text=1>   The diff between the current and the previous version is available at <http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-mcgrew-aead-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2-01>
>  
> This draft has been proposed for use in the JOSE WG <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/jose/> , where its adoption would allow the working group to omit "raw" unauthenticated encryption, e.g. AES-CBC, and only include authenticated encryption.   Thus I am asking for your help in making 
>  
> John Foley generated test cases that correspond to the current version of the draft, but I didn't include these in the draft because I did not yet get confirmation from a second independent implementation.   With hope, there will not be any need for any normative changes, and I will include these after I get confirmation.  
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> David
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg