RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites
"Joseph Salowey \(jsalowey\)" <jsalowey@cisco.com> Mon, 28 August 2006 17:22 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GHkp2-0001WF-UK; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:22:52 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GHkp1-0001WA-O7 for emu@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:22:51 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GHkp0-0007ZH-Bn for emu@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:22:51 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-7.cisco.com ([171.68.10.88]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Aug 2006 10:22:50 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.08,176,1154934000"; d="scan'208"; a="314942446:sNHT34418866"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-7.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k7SHMnvs022596; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:22:49 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k7SHMnw7001804; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.38]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:22:49 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:22:48 -0700
Message-ID: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE50258040E@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites
Thread-Index: AcbFzRxRvYJQ1B0sT0uZqhYdDLk4xQE+S9fw
From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>, "M. Vanderveen" <mvandervn@yahoo.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2006 17:22:49.0477 (UTC) FILETIME=[95F40350:01C6CAC6]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=3325; t=1156785769; x=1157649769; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim7002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; z=From:=22Joseph=20Salowey=20\(jsalowey\)=22=20<jsalowey@cisco.com> |Subject:RE=3A=20[Emu]=20EAP-GPSK=3A=20Ciphersuites; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3D2dulrjaYeLr0EwCAImBrFO70zqA=3D; b=B2Zr1rTL79BtvM0SwJnAXvsqyiB+TfQtfX71C0jFdBRw95T8Q7amEe4nUw1i28k3z/9bdCq5 YuTw8i+gr1opYfCJMfSffVMPh3rs5Ghg5duyQHxsaYrDjRWaB9GvfI9f;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-7.cisco.com; header.From=jsalowey@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6d95a152022472c7d6cdf886a0424dc6
Cc: emu@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" <emu.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/emu>
List-Post: <mailto:emu@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emu-bounces@ietf.org
Is the proposal to make 3DES mandatory and AES optional? It seems that we should be moving toward AES. Since this is a new method it may be better to make AES mandatory and 3DES optional. > -----Original Message----- > From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net] > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 2:20 AM > To: M. Vanderveen > Cc: emu@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites > > Hi > > let us for a moment assume that RFC 4307 makes some > reasonable algorithm choices (we are talking about IKEv2 > here). If we take the text and apply it to EAP-GPSK then we > would produce something like: > > Conservative Choice: > ----------------------- > > (Integrity) > AUTH_HMAC_SHA1_96 2 [RFC2404] MUST > > (Encryption) > ENCR_3DES 3 [RFC2451] MUST- > > (Key Derivation) > PRF_HMAC_SHA1 2 [RFC2104] MUST > > (Note that there is no MUST for encryption algorithms specified in RFC > 4307.) > > > Choice for the Future: > ----------------------- > > (Encryption) > ENCR_AES_CBC 12 [AES-CBC] SHOULD+ > > (Integrity) > AUTH_AES_XCBC_96 5 [AES-MAC] SHOULD+ > > (Key Derivation) > PRF_AES128_CBC 4 [AESPRF] SHOULD+ > > Does this sound like a terrible bad idea? > > Ciao > Hannes > > M. Vanderveen schrieb: > > Both are pretty popular. Why not list them both? As for > which one to be > > mandatory to implement, someone should to a search through > other systems > > (e.g. IEEE, IPSec) and see which one is most popular. > > > > */Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>/* wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > the current version of the document > > > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/emu/draft-clancy-emu-eap-shared-secret-01.txt > > still supports AES-EAX: > > > > > +-----------+----+-------------+---------------+--------------------+ > > | CSuite/ | KS | Encryption | Integrity | Key Derivation | > > | Specifier | | | | Function | > > > +-----------+----+-------------+---------------+--------------------+ > > | 0x000001 | 16 | AES-EAX-128 | AES-CMAC-128 | GKDF-128 | > > > +-----------+----+-------------+---------------+--------------------+ > > > > At the IETF#66 EMU meeting AES CCM was suggested. > > > > Later, it got the impression that AES-CBC was more > appreciated. Should > > we update the draft with AES-CBC? > > > > Ciao > > Hannes > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Emu mailing list > > Emu@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Get on board. You're invited > > > <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40791/*http://advision.webevents.y > ahoo.com/handraisers> > > to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. > > > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
- [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites M. Vanderveen
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Charles Clancy
- AW: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Tschofenig, Hannes
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Bernard Aboba
- RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Ray Bell
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Hannes Tschofenig
- [Emu] RFC 2716bis update Bernard Aboba
- RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites David McGrew
- RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Hannes Tschofenig
- RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites David McGrew
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites David McGrew
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Hannes Tschofenig
- RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Charles Clancy
- RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Lakshminath Dondeti
- RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites David McGrew