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

"Valery Smyslov" <svanru@gmail.com> Sat, 07 March 2015 06:07 UTC

Return-Path: <svanru@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 11BBD1A89E9 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:07:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.161
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.161 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.439] autolearn=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 dymAl4i_bnq9 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:07:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) (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 8324F1A89C4 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:07:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by labgm9 with SMTP id gm9so22026613lab.7 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 22:07:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:importance; bh=kej+3xUjeRY9yjBLn//nFDf7IkOMgi1q5pXYfRjqYFg=; b=VCZvSdtb6ZzK8b0RKbazQeUoPJTtIcSx3NBY4HkunfqBPHcUhfC4r5lIuPsza1cCpF v1YWwauvISQ2k8eUKTYxq0+Xri8gQi7KfGhLfUqQ7J6P3KQaQas+4ieKmdee57l0d8tk MdVbTCzO/cd/7ouoem+bVRMDCs3NMPpGKrSnLcAgAbJ/jFX5AhDv3ctvJjh/esT0tpB4 tqsSHOz1YuKs6WjpenqO2oKGjv0PfzH2qJ8iIgH9DhJvUuM64BZFnx6tszxt/voDQcfe rOjLlbcesqSobieJD4JsflLV36n2Ex7je8pfnJpNagOWwQzprkyIDG3PIJ6BNpOAZFN/ Ylmw==
X-Received: by 10.152.206.70 with SMTP id lm6mr16345541lac.35.1425708447954; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 22:07:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chichi (ppp83-237-34-104.pppoe.mtu-net.ru. [83.237.34.104]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j9sm2158741lbp.7.2015.03.06.22.07.26 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Mar 2015 22:07:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <D693D04174384E1490C952B947F16E99@chichi>
From: Valery Smyslov <svanru@gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, IPsecME WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
References: <86AC7585-93BD-456D-B75E-F85D2D2A2D7F@vpnc.org> <F74554C8-4FA0-485A-9B74-9DB0E70D68DD@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <F74554C8-4FA0-485A-9B74-9DB0E70D68DD@vpnc.org>
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 09:07:20 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3528.331
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3528.331
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/BJa0xgzdaY0cCLgB_pPri84Nwik>
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: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 06:07:31 -0000

> 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.

We (ELVIS-PLUS) will add this algorithm into our products
if it is widely deployed (with some definition of "widely").
And since the algorithm is popular it seems to be the case.

Anyway I'm in favour of adopting the document so that
we don't have interoperability problems in the future.

Valery.

> --Paul Hoffman