[tcpinc] new drafts of TCP-ENO, tcpcrypt

Daniel B Giffin <dbg@scs.stanford.edu> Tue, 24 October 2017 07:39 UTC

Return-Path: <dbg@scs.stanford.edu>
X-Original-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EFF013DA67; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ghUy_CxPq2q3; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from market.scs.stanford.edu (www.scs.stanford.edu [IPv6:2001:470:806d:1::9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC9EC13DA58; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from market.scs.stanford.edu (localhost []) by market.scs.stanford.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v9O7dPas060953; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from dbg@localhost) by market.scs.stanford.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id v9O7dP8U047275; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:39:25 -0700
From: Daniel B Giffin <dbg@scs.stanford.edu>
To: tcpinc@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20171024073925.GC61933@scs.stanford.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/C75TwhVHtrQg5jJSdq8gS3DKsoc>
Subject: [tcpinc] new drafts of TCP-ENO, tcpcrypt
X-BeenThere: tcpinc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Working group mailing list for TCP Increased Security \(tcpinc\)" <tcpinc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpinc/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpinc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 07:39:27 -0000

A few days ago we submitted new drafts of TCP-ENO and


The changes to TCP-ENO were trivial (adjust capitalization
of section titles and alphabetize acknowledgments).

The tcpcrypt document had quite a number of changes
(although most were cosmetic), addressing concerns from
these recent reviews:

  - SECDIR review (Stephen Kent)
  - GENART review (Dale Worley)
  - OPSDIR review (Zitao Wang)

The new draft also changes the mandatory-to-implement
key-agreement schemes from ECDHE with P-256 or P-521 to
*only* ECDHE with Curve25519.  It explains the rationale in
a new sub-section of "Security considerations".  But please
note that a final decision on what schemes to MTI has not
yet been made, so this may change.   WG members: Please see
the recent request for comments on the tcpinc list if you
would like to comment on this issue!

Apart from that, there were quite a lot of wording changes
and a few semantic tweaks.  Here's the diff:


And lastly, here is a summary of the significant changes.

- Capitalize major words in section titles
- Always include an index with keys: mk[j], k_ab[j], k_ba[j]
- Cite the draft-ietf-tcpinc-api in Introduction and also
  where we require an interface to control session caching
- Cite RFC2104 for HMAC
- Note limit on output length of HKDF-Expand
- Try to make clearer that ENO negotiation chooses the TEP, and
  the TEP then determines the key-agreement scheme, KDF and
  associated parameters -- so all of these last could be varied
  by newly-specified TEPs
- At definition of k_ab, k_ba, insert explanation of which
  encryption key to use in a resumed session