[IPsec] draft-ietf-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305
Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 30 June 2015 13:05 UTC
Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@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 24F841A9119 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 9l1fneTdz3Yh for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x233.google.com (mail-wi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::233]) (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 B4CFE1A8AA4 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicgi11 with SMTP id gi11so16085604wic.0 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=miOg1G8+4kJHQPK6NqrJDbHMIYY9JGf2FEb/kXXg6/4=; b=H42xkHdJzQGC9Pj7vWN+cFr4Pv9v5ZgJ9kAYEpuUnIAcv/AmMoSODsdwigBqxjmSWF tKPg/WFO4qtQGQmtFtyfILWed/azD/4BE8vWJllpsBCb4GdNv4jxM7TGL1GNhPWVzl6Q gF3IYfs/4oNgj+SZLAc8gOQFuFI+gGv3ozw2NwejM1Dn0F39WT/nXGooS1+qWU23DOB1 M2EK0r9lVtWWCPeHoGnJwYO7xcWwGmRtuapUdqlwcOjwLqLDDPDdOQAGzn7HlT5bCQ1y nrrbqDh/dJL+auOVbI/3tH9Mv+ahn7ftz6/gahqqJH+HTqW2NOCbUwXhMdmMLdS+BjWV oTZQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.86.73 with SMTP id n9mr32582645wiz.78.1435669522125; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.31.194 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:05:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH6jnUcn2r9eFPTCEGiJQMGNW80nP7Hc9LrEZGwGGauB4Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d0442806ee198be0519bbdb82"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/varNR2EfZ_UXUEaE87IAtKRQaus>
Subject: [IPsec] 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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:05:25 -0000
Hello, I am getting the ballot ready for the next telechat (next week on Thursday). Are there any implementations? My other question is to see if some more text is going to be added to distinguish AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 from ENCR_CHACHA20_POLY1305. I ask because this came up in 2 reviews. While the definitions for both are in the draft and this should be clear enough, an added sentence could do some good to explain that they are different. Thanks. -- Best regards, Kathleen
- [IPsec] draft-ietf-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305 Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [IPsec] draft-ietf-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305 Martin Willi
- Re: [IPsec] draft-ietf-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305 Yoav Nir
- Re: [IPsec] draft-ietf-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305 Yoav Nir