IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Please review draft-ietf-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 27 April 2015 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.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 2F9921A87C0 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 08:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 XgF2yQWQRWmB for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 08:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45EEC1A87B9 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 08:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FF33203AE for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:17:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 820BF63B86; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:05:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6871863731 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:05:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IPsecME WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <7619B0FCC67A43ACB52141E63B65C1B9@buildpc>
References: <4A981ECD-54EE-4C28-93CE-3A138E4AF07F@vpnc.org> <74CD54CA4B3441EC829DB0116C7CDB6E@buildpc> <818C9ECF-3EE7-4804-B0BB-A3E802230751@gmail.com> <7619B0FCC67A43ACB52141E63B65C1B9@buildpc>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:05:39 -0400
Message-ID: <18774.1430147139@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/cYQ74MjiUbXQ5AyTyflHI9c33pM>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Please review draft-ietf-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: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:05:42 -0000

Valery Smyslov <svanru@gmail.com> wrote:
    > I agree that it is better to have a single mechanism for TLS and IPsec.
    > However I doubt if TLS WG would take into considerations our problems,
    > when making its own decision. On the other hand I think that implicit
    > IV is unacceptable for us (at least for IKE).

Whatever problems we have with an implicit IV in ESP will also be felt by DTLS.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status