Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir early review of draft-camwinget-tls-ts13-macciphersuites-06
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 09 August 2020 20:35 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E233A0D5F; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 13:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 Y9g-Y7zKLvQz; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 13:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
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 09CB43A0D55; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 13:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA50F389D6; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:14:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id J9LaDl6vVBYh; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:14:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1618E389D5; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:14:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8E78114; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:35:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
cc: "iot-directorate@ietf.org" <iot-directorate@ietf.org>, "draft-camwinget-tls-ts13-macciphersuites.all@ietf.org" <draft-camwinget-tls-ts13-macciphersuites.all@ietf.org>, Jack Visoky <jmvisoky@ra.rockwell.com>
In-Reply-To: <919FE80F-C51D-4BF9-BCA8-A652BD724EE1@cisco.com>
References: <159693845367.4048.18288256104777981676@ietfa.amsl.com> <919FE80F-C51D-4BF9-BCA8-A652BD724EE1@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:35:34 -0400
Message-ID: <18751.1597005334@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/klSkuq0vcABdM7D3Yvxo9sO7yag>
Subject: Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir early review of draft-camwinget-tls-ts13-macciphersuites-06
X-BeenThere: iot-directorate@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the IoT Directorate Members <iot-directorate.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iot-directorate>, <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iot-directorate/>
List-Post: <mailto:iot-directorate@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-directorate>, <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 20:35:41 -0000
I can believe that many systems would find software based SHA-1 (or MD5!) significantly faster than software-based 3DES. I suspect that there is a "genetic memory" of this fact, which has persisted as "hashes faster than encryption" > The others are also there as some of the not so older systems do not have > AES but yes to SHA-2. I believe that there are people who have decided to implement SHA-2, and have decided not to implement AES. Perhaps there are compelling code space reasons for this, but I don't find the performance/latency reasons compelling. But, we agree that blackbox auditability *is* compelling, and therefore the draft should go forward. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
- [Iot-directorate] Iotdir early review of draft-ca… Michael Richardson via Datatracker
- Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir early review of draf… RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel)
- Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir early review of draf… Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)
- Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir early review of draf… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Iot-directorate] EXTERNAL: Re: Iotdir early … Jack Visoky