Re: [IPsec] Call for WG adoption: draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 12 March 2015 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 465AC1A8880 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 8M-xeNNWNC5S for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:20:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE4991A885F for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by widem10 with SMTP id em10so33887219wid.2 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=NkZBmftwGDu/fXNC4gVFWxFdqQujQ1SJSptYJD0zeWk=; b=g/4W6QbFQDOSz/7ObFKaLXXRZrph4NRAzOKaGFODhiR6U7UheUiqOC2VSotfjdmnZx /Q+P760R7FnygNp/MuymEjfC0kAyoX1Ui4kdzhOY9/t1lFE0EFF3jIEwh2NXFFwhDnwD O4Dd1YJWSN65I6LH8iUuR5L3yDzPW33S6azzpmbo+Tfckn+57bhEdPIfrVfz5GwrSLV9 YvcGyw/TXP7BQkxePuHmZtuC1RS2f98gZ7O4vEtTJ1nuBOy0aVoOBzTEjV+I7fOJw4xx WllCAeR3Pm5Pn7Kts4HB+Vdv2lYuB0mF90Fqc5+SoHRmjYeBczh2+rnv9LciFk1HR5Pn 09Hw==
X-Received: by 10.180.218.71 with SMTP id pe7mr117236753wic.70.1426173626567; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.24.249.226] (dyn32-131.checkpoint.com. [194.29.32.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id vq9sm10530122wjc.6.2015.03.12.08.20.25 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <F74554C8-4FA0-485A-9B74-9DB0E70D68DD@vpnc.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:20:24 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DE25DD1F-E2FB-4123-9844-43F3AEA48920@gmail.com>
References: <86AC7585-93BD-456D-B75E-F85D2D2A2D7F@vpnc.org> <F74554C8-4FA0-485A-9B74-9DB0E70D68DD@vpnc.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/B6E4aoqgGSHkHWqc8jZQ44E8A50>
Cc: IPsecME WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Call for WG adoption: draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:20:31 -0000

> On Mar 6, 2015, at 6:01 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> 
> On Feb 26, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
>> Greetings again. A few people have expressed interest in having https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305 as a WG item for IPsecME. If you want this as a WG document, and you are willing to review drafts as they move through, please say so on this thread. If you are opposed to this being a WG document, please say so (and say why). Thanks in advance.
> 
> This got very little interest, which surprised me. Without a few more people who will commit to review the document and offer comments, we can't really call it a WG work item. Is there really so little interest in new algorithms that are being adopted in other protocols?
> 
> If you are an IPsec implementer, it would be very useful to know whether or not you would support adding this algorithm to your implementation, and why.

Counting both threads, we’ve seen support from MCR, Tero, Paul W, Valery, and Jim Knowles. Together with me this represents at least 5 independent implementations.

I think this should be enough for algorithms that some are suggesting should be the MTI for TLS 1.3 ([1]), and where the algorithms themselves can be considered “vetted”. I know TLS is a different protocol, but there’s no real difference in the way IPsec and TLS use symmetric crypto.

Yoav

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg15452.html