IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jim Knowles <jknowles@SonicWALL.com> Fri, 06 March 2015 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <jknowles@SonicWALL.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 A1C901A86E3 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:58:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 sGmSGvIq6kqA for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:58:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from es8300.sonicwall.com (mail.sonicwall.com [67.115.118.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69F221A8029 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:58:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from es8300.sonicwall.com (127.0.0.1) id hv8ae60171sv for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:57:50 -0800 (envelope-from <jknowles@SonicWALL.com>)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sonicwall.com; s=20131206; h=Received:Received:From:To:Date: Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language:acceptlanguage: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; bh=vBBuY8om CffpP1sfG9vRERDvG4jlwEMjg2DeYXFv45U=; b=GFSrlPHacxxSAMQQqRpk3CBc 9rZXKRj2aY0UivqsIIK9AqJzujhfIm20GxKZLwZ/JwuWzjBMkjzGJ/Ekqf3EIWiB G3ndeUTYbcTGa0OfLizFGRlbsauK7VcdokEPKOGXtxEkm/KdQh2ahwkUeBWe0W0K S+i/r5MJjIZ/o656pBQ6cHNAUYhyCGTBXX6yN7vMZET1H2I3iORjeFQbhBc9Sf6m Ez4ahJP3URaLUO4MpjYl/0IjoMOGBoqbtAxM8OaTE7fcrRHDPfFhUXJOHaV7Xbt0 FCBu4zT4XmIxJD+sF2SmzY5Eapn5/Csjv2lpoZXSsSKCKhPW0ObArRK3Gc68UQ==
Received: from US0EXCHT03.us.sonicwall.com ([10.50.129.199]) by es8300.sonicwall.com (SonicWALL 8.0.7.3057) with ESMTPS (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128) id 201503062057500010336; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:57:50 -0800
Received: from US0SCC01.us.sonicwall.com ([10.50.128.34]) by US0EXCHT03.us.sonicwall.com ([fe80::f8fb:fc84:1cac:ff59%10]) with mapi; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:57:50 -0800
From: Jim Knowles <jknowles@SonicWALL.com>
To: IPsecME WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:57:48 -0800
Thread-Topic: [IPsec] Call for WG adoption: draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305
Thread-Index: AdBYJtLULozwSKe4RyqlzVrzPQv9NAAKM1Pg
Message-ID: <E6BA500F02F6C946B20ACA49E0F941F541C613A1B3@US0SCC01.us.sonicwall.com>
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>
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-Mlf-Version: 8.0.7.3057
X-Mlf-UniqueId: o201503062057500010336
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/CUuNhH4CR0wgrHDUBCT3uWdXnXg>
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: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 20:58:17 -0000

I've read the draft and favor adoption as a working group item.  Although I can't speak for my company, I would push for, and expect, support to be added to a future product release once reviewed and advanced.

Jim Knowles

-----Original Message-----
From: IPsec [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 8:01 AM
To: IPsecME WG
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Call for WG adoption: draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305

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.

--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email