Re: [jose] 192 bit AES keys

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Thu, 18 July 2013 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0741311E8232 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.698, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qH22+9s9sfdk for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FF4711E8231 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-gh0-f172.google.com with SMTP id r18so1116058ghr.31 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date :to:x-gm-message-state; bh=4orguqBBAA4t19MALjpgr/CfOr5GZQ3WRCZdVUlNLdk=; b=ZkTHB+efKgTwlQqVvGSrsm+PC07fnehqBPWaLTvPEbLySZWkSuaX+60POfDgYo74br alpq4p2ex0QMOeQk0FxejkH3U4G2J3WHgq7XXZvKM6CNdPMQOERcEu3dpYNsuxsyBR5d 9BNBgot9+bsHIAluKFpJqyRuCUmi3+ugvdh0EShp14iCHSrR+bN/sJqlHje7Glzj0Zpg xdREO7VsnjjLJzmG+ydrU0VvJF2BpDmcdiugek1saBJDcmFrlLtJsVPaHCl+8XJ7fElg tD6rCvYOYmzVSIAePaYA/HlZKjmEVh8kiVW4j4LjU92OY2n+RnFgUB2ySGPFhfg9kZzT Vjqw==
X-Received: by 10.236.230.3 with SMTP id i3mr7271756yhq.52.1374185919541; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.40] (190-20-40-94.baf.movistar.cl. [190.20.40.94]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m64sm17493734yho.25.2013.07.18.15.18.36 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436B6EC698@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436B6EC698@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-59A58EF1-25FF-4BF9-8FFE-D190A340B724
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <5CC365A3-7A21-40B3-B5A1-044E4B82D221@ve7jtb.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11A4414e)
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 18:17:56 -0400
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlpXKqKN1OC+ayxi9rh+JAQju99MaHtvmSlrXkxuZCm/1YEC3z3aQRIXN8mK7BjKlQZnAef
Cc: "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] 192 bit AES keys
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption <jose.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose>
List-Post: <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 22:18:52 -0000

I am OK with registering the 192 bit versions. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 18, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> Richard had previously requested that we register algorithm identifiers for AES using 192 bit keys.  As he previously pointed out, “It seems like if we're going to support AES, then we should support AES.  Every AES library I know of supports all three key lengths, so it's not like there's extra cost besides the registry entry.”  (I’ll note that we already have algorithm identifiers for the “mid-size” HMAC and signature functions “HS384”, “RS384”, and “ES384”.)
>  
> I heard no objections at the time.  I’m therefore thinking that we should register algorithm identifiers for these key sizes as well.  Specifically, we would add:
> “A192KW”, “ECDH-ES+A192KW”, “A192GCMKW”, “PBES2-HS256+A192KW”, “A192CBC-HS384”, and “A192GCM”.  Support for these algorithms would be optional.
>  
> What do people think?
>  
>                                                             -- Mike
>  
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose