Re: [jose] 192 bit AES keys

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Fri, 19 July 2013 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 89FEA21E80BB for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.016
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.016 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 wMtvgB-0meAV for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-f43.google.com (mail-oa0-f43.google.com [209.85.219.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F19E21E80C7 for <jose@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id i7so6386076oag.16 for <jose@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=JDeeajTFUg043QrUuiVzz3rmjTo/9sZ8n+c2IWh6F3g=; b=aDpqUyrEKrjGEIi0WZVWSqP41H0hppFBq4OiMTNR0OVCJuMk53fIK1vFe12Rff8BRW oufRotpjoChWsodyzn/yMyhbAexKKkiYd55WcP+ZvuP3vk8xCrM4ZuhrelRM/ery9ti7 znWg3X53J9YUl1KULqTuSMf6FXGhO8Y4Rz0RNutNzCmvqx8L8LYURaQQI7HYcSs9LTKt xZzXdsggTDNLU/GQwW6IJb1m7osdLxs1iCLnZSiJ93eP8ISR9iisPbey2emG2Wvf8DTs etguXH4NA7I1ZqPbayf21r9xkA5vaGKsPJAXsvG82hzCmkdLLwAZF/YugMq7z+SLJKBA mR/g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.55.196 with SMTP id u4mr18464069oep.57.1374252438736; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.26.135 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [192.1.51.54]
In-Reply-To: <5CC365A3-7A21-40B3-B5A1-044E4B82D221@ve7jtb.com>
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436B6EC698@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <5CC365A3-7A21-40B3-B5A1-044E4B82D221@ve7jtb.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:47:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgQH5czkGRn2daZh71Jci5oKFBoOfTzOfmHVD-Tah0g-sw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e012292ac71616204e1e014b5
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkZN8u903Bk85nlu/QFxfYRFQSWX6OXFtUn/sT/rE2sztIX1SDwx6tyFUT4dpi5N7vQaxWC
Cc: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, "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: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:47:27 -0000

Or we could just remove the key lengths from the algorithm IDs altogether
;)  They really don't add any value.


On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:17 PM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>