Re: [openpgp] SHA3 algorithm ids.

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Wed, 12 August 2015 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B9561A8AA1 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 GKFW23ytH7Aj for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x234.google.com (mail-lb0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::234]) (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 5DB8D1A8748 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbcbn3 with SMTP id bn3so11769265lbc.2 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Xc/tid/Fk/ScqqP48Ix3iWPmW890lgBB8Df6bSZBcfE=; b=g4hd2qI71nB5SRnQx9SNPx/+BlxquA1q7r6l9pXAIHB/wpiRI5pXndXiSOzGjJDBJF AqqnV01L/A+aMX18/4MGIV/oSuUUVQIpokzfCm541jGcuxeFUz+ZM+/QNpohkj8IfQr/ iEiNaBy63JMBbvqUIYxE95VyYX5YeBx9QsjHWTatGoDEPS9eYZ2tifA8g+ZyunUkCq8+ ah6PFPcjcIIxvGVURCdAC0X4dz+wvKO+pmeqC59+CGpG/rSUGAVk49xQxNN43nHaQqLc n4ueAaVQ8alCx542n2mOHT9xC9HKpD8GzPfDyYYsY1WLQiUCVkOay4dpEPkh/iT+R5Z7 uFXw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.204.196 with SMTP id la4mr32824594lac.124.1439394171754; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.203.163 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <sjm7fp0sh6z.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
References: <87y4hmi19i.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <7540C7A9-2830-4A63-8310-B684796DA279@nohats.ca> <55C681FC.9010100@iang.org> <sjma8tztbgo.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <CAMm+Lwj7SxXTn+KD-eQSeZHwJB36tCgD1t0bodVsp3ovOaZ8mw@mail.gmail.com> <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73F4AD7C72@uxcn10-5.UoA.auckland.ac.nz> <CAMm+LwifPNxyj1LLA-k+8K=mmEztS42E2kcEfGFObPc0R2xvMQ@mail.gmail.com> <sjm7fp0sh6z.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:42:51 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: GhY36Ik0UX026bOtvOqYevTkxE8
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwhHeaEYT2xZ8=3j7bhF6TeLPFUddek7C3_Z3-fYNUaeoA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113499ce4ca147051d1f1294
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/ONgb_jmu219HovKmc8jX3VNqzfg>
Cc: IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>, ianG <iang@iang.org>, Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] SHA3 algorithm ids.
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:42:55 -0000

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>; wrote:

> Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>; writes:
>
> > Constrained devices still exist. But the constraint on processing speed
> is
> > easing up much more quickly than the constraint on code space and working
> > memory.
>
> You'd actually be surprised at how untrue this is.  There are tons of
> devices out there still using 8- and 16-bit processors (or no processors
> at all!)  What's happening is that these low-end systems are getting
> installed into smaller and smaller devices.  So yes, if you look at a
> particular device (e.g. cell phone) it's getting more powerful every
> year.  However soon our light bulbs will be "smart".
>
> So let's not assume that these low-end processors are going away, please?


Well the constraint on processing is easing up due to the move from RSA to
ECC. And for the amount of data going though one of these processors, the
choice of AES or DES doesn't make much of a difference. These things don't
have to communicate very fast.

The thing that gets really uncomfortable is dealing with the amount of
memory available. Quite a few of the embedded chips have even less RAM than
the Commodore PET I started with when 32KB was the large machine.

Yes, these chips are not going away any time soon. The number of chips
being made with 6502 based cores has increased every year since the 80s.
But the problem with the chips isn't just that they are slow.