Re: aes128gcm: is the 1st example wrong?
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Sun, 12 February 2017 23:37 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD0512948E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:37:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 in5dSMOd609n for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:36:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FC06129493 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:36:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cd3dj-0007o3-WD for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 23:33:08 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 23:33:07 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cd3dj-0007o3-WD@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1cd3de-0007nD-Dd for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 23:33:02 +0000
Received: from mail-qt0-f195.google.com ([209.85.216.195]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1cd3dX-0000LK-BI for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 23:32:57 +0000
Received: by mail-qt0-f195.google.com with SMTP id n13so11180887qtc.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:32:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UARF0v3WMp2ubwug44+jdetMB/RMR+aabsHYWW0DTZA=; b=B+X6AltDtq9L+D5qta6V9/Q4jv49LNWbKYGmun/mArl5Z1pMwOL9g97bRivVyGy7XC JE9U7vMXlGEwifGqUNUvfXMbC3cICrZxdX777TOVWpf6lsUx8FgUneKZJ+hQKcHonypH vfgcBLjctnzdJ0Ra8Ji3lvQRZLN/eVw85NENFH7X9qLFBq6EO5Lgecw7lvb5zRMI0bz8 uZNtLE/Rb63ntXcydT+E2LIUDTXJbGgWWBgjCqv+DE8VC+7nqsBxkJaYRzN2RsA6Rcat kOBHq5wAydIacO4gK9xhURBlNaWdmoS88d/78d4sGJN3Za+Lqq1kNy79/7NWC/rPlOid eCKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UARF0v3WMp2ubwug44+jdetMB/RMR+aabsHYWW0DTZA=; b=AOLAVyNxzuRqA923I61h6AKPxJXYFcHpSByAIZiJmyWjrEMi8xQoYCwh2wYRBuITeX fP5xM8WWv/IdiFnhvxrqzNDnDE8xPyaS0YDWhynqv0/nUQuJQb1ak1k7ezMHS77uaPJ5 c2iltt2nLCQCIp3pRh5RxUZlCsWR4DS2cEX3GLGbW6ALFlOiaLnap1axaO4pAAw6Z8LF 2y06Pf/VguIzu20fzQ0lqxlukn1P2nRhRKGEdlF64tNdj3YUW7+1tevB5vmrOXcKMWz7 QlSjrzMOOZPmCJCRaUpmHSjj3dTmFSUg6FoktCtGcZ9CcOU8XoT80HImVezYPTKuJ0M9 l9Ww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39ngVK5ShtaJT6EcvirOvfeRm+T/noBv3/q5/dOBbNBhr7Vvwn2ZJY2IKU9Ga3JipoZkrSCNnFSJeE46DQ==
X-Received: by 10.200.49.249 with SMTP id i54mr19778300qte.3.1486942349671; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:32:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.19.112 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:32:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1459eb07-f8cb-ff90-6101-be05f80c76aa@gmx.de>
References: <SYXPR01MB1615D5823473E6A9B5F0C80DE57C0@SYXPR01MB1615.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnWE38wbhKfp+5nF1hfn7qH4-6Uk4QMGBKgGL6-f_em_KA@mail.gmail.com> <1459eb07-f8cb-ff90-6101-be05f80c76aa@gmx.de>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:32:29 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVVc3OvJh1ukTuaFmrbOLgEiVWSqfKGP74ct=TKxpZxTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Manger, James" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.216.195; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-qt0-f195.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.384, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cd3dX-0000LK-BI 962e80e08043981013be23526a69d3a6
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: aes128gcm: is the 1st example wrong?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnVVc3OvJh1ukTuaFmrbOLgEiVWSqfKGP74ct=TKxpZxTg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33474
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 13 February 2017 at 06:47, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > FWIW, I was able to reproduce the examples with the updated code in > <https://gist.github.com/reschke/46659c912b426dffeac41d9a21421c95>, modulo > the change Martin mentioned (but which I don't see in Git). 'twas on a branch. I've merged that now. > WRT > <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-06.html#rfc.section.3.2>: > it would be good if the prose mentioned that this specifies a keyid of "a1" > in the header. Also on said branch :)
- aes128gcm: is the 1st example wrong? Manger, James
- Re: aes128gcm: is the 1st example wrong? Martin Thomson
- Re: aes128gcm: is the 1st example wrong? Julian Reschke
- RE: aes128gcm: is the 1st example wrong? Manger, James
- Re: aes128gcm: is the 1st example wrong? Martin Thomson
- Re: aes128gcm: is the 1st example wrong? Julian Reschke
- Re: aes128gcm: is the 1st example wrong? Martin Thomson
- Re: aes128gcm: is the 1st example wrong? Daurnimator
- RE: aes128gcm: is the 1st example wrong? Manger, James
- Re: aes128gcm: is the 1st example wrong? Daurnimator