Re: Discussion of 9.2.2

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 25 September 2014 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01A11A8712 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.065
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 k1woXrHYu6ms for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 917AC1A870F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XXC3e-0001Th-8e for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:38:18 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:38:18 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XXC3e-0001Th-8e@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ekr@rtfm.com>) id 1XXC3H-0001RU-FK for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:37:55 +0000
Received: from mail-we0-f170.google.com ([74.125.82.170]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ekr@rtfm.com>) id 1XXC3G-0000Ny-27 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:37:55 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f170.google.com with SMTP id x48so6868633wes.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=eAR3Y+j04Enivnhk/UelnnFRxobUarq2/Sa/T5XFE/g=; b=H1HyxiimwM+Olt1gAyrpPBu6+AEPgEabg+fKYfY203G96iQNPw3Jns+vsTTHcODvoe /cooAUyNEQ0QU1sDBIwVvv/LC6OyN/G8MuNqB1k5WUYNcBQbm+tQxwqK3CtNdCvoF06y TNBIvPkxwzG7XR0YpJ3yCUy0ShtRGCWMVy5zp0fAjnC8sQI+ZmZy32YmxWl10MkMn+qr da4tzEetxACJFr5ZXIi1tR6cGCak4FHhXGIT59cMGCTB3bGCjfC1B7NHsUkDieFAR7nd M/07qJuOdUTWnpHYkyuU79Qbd59nFpFCvrDKsm77wHPXdYd5cbYz7Mfp69NZ+VT4BefS YN+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlbIPY8iY0qXGmrsO/qLYhKPwkAEX6P7inec6XYLA4TNksQNwCz0w7CHRV+zVYS4KAl5boK
X-Received: by 10.180.184.20 with SMTP id eq20mr39841596wic.61.1411663047414; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.176.100 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAH_y2NFu=kyTVK_neACEVyWp9m4wfLOUu-=Dc9nZoMhP+fNSsg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F0D4BA2A-46B2-4F1A-8A23-1A319A3E5FC0@mnot.net> <CABkgnnV0HFeshNAe9CAzFDeED6Os_GmG6kxm827N18wduCkjiA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NFu=kyTVK_neACEVyWp9m4wfLOUu-=Dc9nZoMhP+fNSsg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:36:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMOqi+5LFzf1MmQuuW+4O7Pmvky68riNqtJDcbzQnvQig@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c3536a7becef0503e66a3f"
Received-SPF: none client-ip=74.125.82.170; envelope-from=ekr@rtfm.com; helo=mail-we0-f170.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.024, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XXC3G-0000Ny-27 41c78c604784a4e1de332dcd1ceac712
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABcZeBMOqi+5LFzf1MmQuuW+4O7Pmvky68riNqtJDcbzQnvQig@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/27234
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:

> I am concerned that "No block/stream ciphers except AEAD" is a
> sufficiently future proof specification.  Could there be block/stream
> ciphers that use something other than AEAD to make them sufficiently strong
> for h2?
>

For the record, I think it's important to be clear that this isn't quite
accurate.

TLS divides cipher suites into three categories:

- block
- stream
- AEAD

So, AEAD isn't an exception, it's a third category. One might imagine adding
a fourth category, but that wouldn't fall afoul of 9.2.2 because 9.2.2
prohibits
block and stream, but doesn't say *only* AEAD.

I realize that it's a bit confusing because AES-GCM is an AEAD primitive
based on a block cipher (AES) [0], but in the TLS taxonomy, that makes it
an AEAD cipher, not a block cipher.

-Ekr