[Crypto-panel] Re: Request for review: Usage Limits on AEAD Algorithms

["Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

>> Stanislav, we can get you a fresh revision if you think this is ready to
push.
Yes, that would be great – the updates look good to me.
After you do that and we understand that the concerns are addressed in the
updated version, I'll be happy to start the RGLC immediately.

Thomas, could you please look at the updated version and confirm (or not)
that you are happy with the changes?

Regards,
Stanislav

On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 3:21 AM Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> Felix went through and addressed these comments.  They were, as I
> suspected, quite straightforward.
>
> Thanks again Thomas.
>
> Stanislav, we can get you a fresh revision if you think this is ready to
> push.  Let me know.  (I'll assume you want a revision unless I hear
> otherwise.)
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024, at 11:55, Martin Thomson wrote:
> > Thanks for this.  Just from skimming through it seems like this is all
> > very useful feedback that should be fairly straightforward to address
> > on the whole.
> >
> > I've dumped this all on an issue, so we don't lose it, but we'll
> > probably come at it piecewise.
> >
> > https://github.com/cfrg/draft-irtf-cfrg-aead-limits/issues/67
> >
> > We'll post to the list (and cc you) if there are questions that come up.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024, at 00:26, Thomas Pornin wrote:
> >> Oops, looks like I had forgotten it. Sorry.
> >>
> >> Here is my review. Overall, the document is a nice endeavour; since the
> >> focus is on IETF protocols, it might be worth to give a few more
> >> applied examples? The tables in the document give number of 1500-byte
> >> messages (“a common Internet MTU”) which would conceptually apply to
> >> something like IPsec, though less so for e.g. SSH or TLS, which have
> >> larger “records”. I also have some misgivings on the advice in section
> >> 7 which amounts to, basically, ignoring in implementations the limits
> >> that the rest of the document takes pains to define; as a “security
> >> consideration”, it does not seem conductive of security.
> >>
> >> Thomas
> >>
> >> *From: *Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev <[e-mail]>
> >> *Date: *Wednesday, June 12, 2024 at 12:07
> >> *To: *Thomas Pornin <[e-mail]>
> >> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> >> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> >> [e-mail]
> >> <[e-mail]>
> >> *Subject: *Re: [Crypto-panel] Request for review: Usage Limits on AEAD
> >> Algorithms
> >> Thank you so much, Thomas!
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Stanislav
> >>
> >> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 19:04, Thomas Pornin <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>> I can make a review (by mid-July, possibly much sooner).
> >>>
> >>> Thomas
> >>>
> >>> *From: *Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev <[e-mail]>
> >>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 11, 2024 at 03:30
> >>> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> >>> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]
> >
> >>> *Subject: *[Crypto-panel] Request for review: Usage Limits on AEAD
> Algorithms
> >>> Dear Crypto Panel experts,
> >>>
> >>> The chairs would like to ask the Crypto Panel to provide a review for
> the current version (-08) of the "Usage Limits on AEAD Algorithms" draft,
> draft-irtf-cfrg-aead-limits-08  (
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-cfrg-aead-limits-08.html)
> >>>
> >>> Volunteers?
> >>>
> >>> Stanislav (on behalf of the CFRG Chairs)
> >> Attachments:
> >> * review-draft-irtf-cfrg-aead-limits-08.txt
>