IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 06 March 2015 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 720B31A1A45 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:46:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 9Ve0y2Ae_ikd for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:46:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE01A1A1A10 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:46:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3kzHwh27TKzC2j; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 19:46:44 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results: mx.nohats.ca; dkim=pass reason="1024-bit key; unprotected key" header.d=nohats.ca header.i=@nohats.ca header.b=LNe7OrGl; dkim-adsp=pass
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ah4d8BipwuPm; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 19:46:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 19:46:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D08813B1; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 13:46:42 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1425667602; bh=t/1GApVTARmqtLRJIS4Y9W5qePgAkaQppOL/NnkBZMk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=LNe7OrGlDs8+YWLH4LLRug2RjaKdrHLmQgn77ZpDLiY7sr2avM2YJO0aM2KvqcmWA zjkLSQ17PltracrrDnkEIRhx4hr6GAhcLt7Yj4q7rVDNxA45Flok+tJI4jX2hjWOw9 c7OE+OsmiEzMvaxkBnnSSKSnoW9lb3Mgc7oCySlg=
Received: from localhost (paul@localhost) by bofh.nohats.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id t26IkfY6024541; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 13:46:41 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: bofh.nohats.ca: paul owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 13:46:41 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <F74554C8-4FA0-485A-9B74-9DB0E70D68DD@vpnc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1503061343260.27478@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <86AC7585-93BD-456D-B75E-F85D2D2A2D7F@vpnc.org> <F74554C8-4FA0-485A-9B74-9DB0E70D68DD@vpnc.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/YITvxAAnmI6b73-XkC4vFtE_gao>
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: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 18:46:49 -0000

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> 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.

libreswan will add support for this algorithm in IKE and use the kernel
implementation for ESP.

Even with low "interest", this should be taken on by the WG, or else we
will just get another private use number like SERPENT(252) or
TWOFISH(253) or KAME_NULL(251) that everyone will use.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email