IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-ao-crypto ...

<Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com> Thu, 25 February 2010 21:21 UTC

Return-Path: <Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 552FE3A6D0F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:21:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.438
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.161, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 hZA+72hBv3Q5 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:21:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-mx03.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.230]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 142BA3A855B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:21:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh105.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.31]) by mgw-mx03.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o1PLNr1k021212; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:23:59 +0200
Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.23]) by vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:23:58 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:23:53 +0200
Received: from NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.86]) by nok-am1mhub-03.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) with mapi; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:23:53 +0100
From: Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com
To: ah@TR-Sys.de, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-ao-crypto@tools.IETF.ORG
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:23:52 +0100
Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-ao-crypto ...
Thread-Topic: Last Call: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-ao-crypto ...
Thread-Index: Acq2NlmimBQAVCqBQQK9i07KCN6dnQAKdRMQ
Message-ID: <808FD6E27AD4884E94820BC333B2DB7758480C39D6@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <201002242102.WAA04538@TR-Sys.de>
In-Reply-To: <201002242102.WAA04538@TR-Sys.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Feb 2010 21:23:53.0595 (UTC) FILETIME=[D4C004B0:01CAB660]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:21:54 -0000

ah@TR-Sys.de wrote:

> Hello,
> draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-ao-crypto-02 intends to make
> mandatory-to-implement for TCP-AO two MAC algorithms,
> HMAC-SHA-1-96 and AES-128-CMAC-96, as well as two related KDFs.
> 
> IIRC, other WG(s) have been advised last year by important stakeholders
> (in particular NIST) to not standardize new use cases (e.g. in IPsec)
> of the CMAC / CCM Modes of Operation for a block cipher primitive,
> in favor of the GMAC / GCM Modes of Operation, because of the
> significant performance benefits of the latter modes.

Could you provide some pointers to this advise?  As the responsible
Area Director for IPSECME WG (and a contributor to several IPsec
documents), I do not recall seeing any advice that would match
your description.

(But it wouldn't be unheard of that I've missed some emails..)

Best regards,
Pasi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email