Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ChaCha inputs (#2171)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Fri, 14 December 2018 00:25 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 9AF8B12E036 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:25:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.056
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.056 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_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, 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 clrPLag0gOF0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:25:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C14DB1286E7 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:25:14 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:25:13 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1544747113; bh=NUa3kSlJATksEh7OhVRnO6XhSt1ZHf/b4QL3sspS5VQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=clJz1QVxD5VqzcHONsm0eCg78dUnRqj7NgnqQ/z13vKedyiuS+54hjS3Ff4c+oV2m qKKb90RLYb6q57EDqc4WjA9Mk+4fcBSZV3y3V3CFwm0+WWvtmnjneVpteUah+IL1lS QRM1vt/A14t4NXkPcxdam6zWlZ2nnOiw5efpztI0=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abd933cefe7e11139d5908b64b1f5d6d8c794690b392cf00000001182aba6992a169ce174ce37a@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2171/447170020@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2171@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2171@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ChaCha inputs (#2171)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c12f869ce5af_46e23fea0ccd45c0499591"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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/Yn85M8GHho_Un35TEEt7QzoXS9A>
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: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 00:25:16 -0000

As a completely general note, I don't think it is right to change endianness of crypto wire formats. AES-GCM has a completely backwards neither little nor big endian encoding (byte and bit swapped so no platform wins) this remains so on the wire. Especially for HW processing this is significant. But little endian is also more performant on nearly all relevant platforms today so there is no need to go over board forcing big endian if it can be avoided without insulting RFC's.

-- 
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/issues/2171#issuecomment-447170020