Re: [tcpinc] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Sorry, "not an unreasonable desire"

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Kyle Rose <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 5:08 AM, Black, David <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >> - Encryption: The intent is - don't use anything weaker than AES-128,
>> >> e.g., don't even think about using 3DES.  The concern is how to write
>> that
>> >> requirement in a way that would survive hypothetical discovery of a
>> >> catastrophic cryptanalytic attack on AES-128.
>> >
>> >
>> > Or even a small one. I mean, what does this say about Curve25519 or 4Q.
>>
>> I think this is actually the issue driving the vagueness of the
>> requirement: e.g., if some hypothetical attack against AES-128 reduced
>> security by a few bits. The intent, as David suggests, is to prohibit
>> the use of something like DES, not to prohibit a 128-bit cipher with
>> only (say) 125 bits of security.
>>
>
> That's not a reasonable desire, but this is an RFC 2119 requirement, so it
> really does need to be unambiguous.
>
> -Ekr
>
>