Re: [Hipsec] Proposed new list for HIP_TRANSFORM

Miika Komu <miika.komu@hiit.fi> Wed, 06 January 2010 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <miika.komu@hiit.fi>
X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417133A6915 for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:05:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.185
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TURwe6Lfi6dq for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:05:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from argo.otaverkko.fi (argo.otaverkko.fi [212.68.0.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58EB73A690B for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:05:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (cs27096138.pp.htv.fi [89.27.96.138]) by argo.otaverkko.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53C625ED15; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:05:54 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <4B44C35E.8090200@hiit.fi>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:07:42 +0200
From: Miika Komu <miika.komu@hiit.fi>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
References: <4B440CA5.3010209@htt-consult.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B440CA5.3010209@htt-consult.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Proposed new list for HIP_TRANSFORM
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: miika.komu@hiit.fi
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:05:58 -0000

Robert Moskowitz wrote:

Hi,

> Proposed new list for HIP_TRANSFORM:
> 
>          Suite ID                          Value
> 
>          RESERVED                          0
>          AES-CBC with HMAC-SHA1            1     ([RFC3602], [RFC2404])
>          3DES-CBC with HMAC-SHA1           2     ([RFC2451], [RFC2404])
>          DEPRECATED                        3
>          BLOWFISH-CBC with HMAC-SHA1       4     ([RFC2451], [RFC2404])
>          NULL-ENCRYPT with HMAC-SHA1       5     ([RFC2410], [RFC2404])
>          DEPRECATED                        6
>          NULL-ENCRYPT with HMAC-SHA2       7     ([RFC2410], [RFC4868])
>          AES-CBC with HMAC-SHA2            8     ([RFC3602], [RFC4868])
>          AES-CCM-8                         9     [RFC4309]
>          AES-CCM-12                        10    [RFC4309]
>          AES-CCM-16                        11    [RFC4309]
>          AES-GCM with a 8 octet ICV        12    [RFC4106]
>          AES-GCM with a 12 octet ICV       13    [RFC4106]
>          AES-GCM with a 16 octet ICV       14    [RFC4106]

seems fine with me. Should the "natural" key size be reflected in some 
of the algorithms descriptions?