IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Hipsec] [Tm-rid] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-moskowitz-hip-new-crypto-04.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 24 January 2020 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 257FB12004C; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:41:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id txse4mxaQV0A; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:41:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8095612001E; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:41:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 861BE38982; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 13:41:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B2F60A; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 13:41:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: hipsec@ietf.org, "tm-rid@ietf.org" <tm-rid@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <0c9949d8-2d37-b1f7-eb53-84f200897ebe@labs.htt-consult.com>
References: <157979422864.22806.5435940336310786424.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2e4a29e3-e4ca-22f4-ec50-105e53359b41@labs.htt-consult.com> <CADZyTkn48RWo+rvza=DFsY4RU3=nTNv+6VuBSvFLXqF53xC6eg@mail.gmail.com> <0c9949d8-2d37-b1f7-eb53-84f200897ebe@labs.htt-consult.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 13:41:49 -0500
Message-ID: <20397.1579891309@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/0kobhEVqp225PTl5gT_wuu-Y6is>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] [Tm-rid] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-moskowitz-hip-new-crypto-04.txt
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 18:41:52 -0000

Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com> wrote:
    > I would actually like to make a presentation at SAAG about KMAC as a KDF and
    > why the IETF should incorporate it.

    > SP 800-185 was published back in Dec 2016.  This clearly shows how to use
    > KMAC as a replacement for HMAC.  Many in the security community 'rejected'
    > SHA3 as only marginally faster than SHA256. They missed that thus KMAC is 2x
    > as fast as HMAC-SHA256!

I guess you saying that KMAC does not require two passes of the underlying
hash when used with SHA3?  Or is it in general?


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email