IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-ipsecme-esp-ah-reqts

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 03 March 2014 22:34 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 0385E1A0249 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 14:34:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.547
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] 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 wZ--A1Gll8Ve for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 14:34:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB73A1A0233 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 14:34:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D4FB800AF; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 17:34:47 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1393886087; bh=9BF4FCymJvKhIDJBvHQNscZEFRvk5fZ+sxCsIFu/DTE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=QouLCCmps6I9VmYPE2zlGhaymS+KQBaocr5Qjm3kOoKmJrED5ojdt+QzGxIWOTAG4 qzM/vxqhuhqI8aNnXxFiZ5jhK5OlPhNszonX/ZWnC/siJGOAFqvdQWFJnLBO1rjsBK kTr1GZPqq3nogviseRBmEaBxGXF+srIGPpuTY36A=
Received: from localhost (paul@localhost) by bofh.nohats.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id s23MYk7H005328; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 17:34:46 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: bofh.nohats.ca: paul owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 17:34:46 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <21268.42389.983348.801438@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1403031730000.4233@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <530CE583.6030801@gmail.com> <9618756DDA9C407AB0DC06AC207FD394@buildpc> <21268.42389.983348.801438@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
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/_wCwZDmqN-EPnBJ0Izk6eYosvx8
Cc: ipsec <ipsec@ietf.org>, Valery Smyslov <svanru@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-ipsecme-esp-ah-reqts
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: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 22:34:56 -0000

On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Tero Kivinen wrote:

> Hmm... actually we should most like use the same names we use in the
> IANA registry. For example we have 3 different types of AES-GCM:
>
> 18   AES-GCM with a 8 octet ICV    [RFC4106]   [RFC5282]
> 19   AES-GCM with a 12 octet ICV   [RFC4106]   [RFC5282]
> 20   AES-GCM with a 16 octet ICV   [RFC4106]   [RFC5282]
>
> Which one of those is the one that is moved to SHOULD+? Should we just
> pick one of them, and say that it is the one we prefer, or should all
> implementations implement all of them? AES-CCM has similar thing, but
> as they are moving to MAY it does not really matter.

Actually yes. I talked to one of the authors of RFC 4106, John Viega,
a while ago and he said:

"Some people seemed  to think embedded devices would want to use truncated
  tags. in this day in age, I would recommend AGAINST tag truncation"

So I would be happy to only move ID 20 to SHOULD+ and actually demote
18 and 19.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email