Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Use the same KDF regardless of TLS version (#2034)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Wed, 21 November 2018 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 185EA12F295 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:51:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
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 ALvFwVg6irsS for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:51:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B60E127B4C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:51:22 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:51:21 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1542833481; bh=2PhTLyJExLXLd8WDipPacJ9iv14BAZtx8JvOeeePPoo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=CsYQ6oWXLM0dLIK2qzWNe5rKIdOxGRX9if/ST1AriMWGEYTFmwS+Y94jhnc+8uttG aZkci58DbnkmuZ9hTa1u9cFcVy7M3SqWnPvr/UE/6g3UJQR6MJ5fY+EpGSKFrSPNXL tfyfbpQ8SySs8yfZbsNRYdRC2MNZxtH28lQ8Qv14=
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abf0d653bb326af8410255a801bb26017bdbbc50d392cf00000001180d874992a169ce16d3c410@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2034/c440804647@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2034@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2034@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Use the same KDF regardless of TLS version (#2034)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bf5c5491d241_3ad33fbecbed45bc136225"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/BX8lsf_vUzN_nM1npvBAl4Qerr8>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 20:51:24 -0000

HMAC is used in TLS because it has proven security properties.  There are alternatives (a construction based on AES is one of those), but they don't have security proofs that would support the proofs of TLS.  Favouring proven primitives is the conservative approach.  If a primitive that is faster can be proven to provide the properties we require, we can determine at that point whether defining a new version is worthwhile.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2034#issuecomment-440804647