Re: [Tls-reg-review] [IANA #1260562] Request for Assignment (draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead)

So a few confusing things:

Why is 128 have a capital L after it as in “TLS_AEGIS_128L_SHA256”
What’s with the “OIDS for AEGIS…”  TLS registry entries are not OIDs.

That said, I have no objection to assiging ciphersuite numbers to AEGIS.

Since this is a mode of AES, I guess it can be close to GCM and CCM.  How about 0x13,0x06 and 0x13,0x07

Yoav

> On 9 Nov 2022, at 12:35, Sabrina Tanamal via RT <iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Rich, Yoav, Nick,
> 
> We have received a new TLS Cipher Suite request. Please see below. 
> 
> If these are OK, which values should we assign? 
> 
> Registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters
> 
> The deadline for reviews would be November 30th, according to RFC 8447.
> 
> Best regards, 
> 
> Sabrina Tanamal
> Lead IANA Services Specialist
> 
> ====
> 
> Contact Name:
> Frank Denis
> 
> Contact Email:
> fdenis@fastly.com
> 
> Type of Assignment:
> OIDs for the AEGIS authenticated ciphers
> 
> Registry:
> TLS registry
> 
> Description:
> AEGIS is a family of authenticated ciphers that is being standardized. We (Fastly) would like to include it into an experimental TLS stack in order to run measurements.
> 
> TLS_AEGIS_256_SHA384 and TLS_AEGIS_128L_SHA256 would be alternatives to TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 and TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256.
> 
> So, DTLS-OK and Recommended should be Y as well.
> 
> For cipher suites, the description is the cipher suite name as documented in the RFC8446 document.
> 
> So, for consistency, in the context of TLS, I guess the AEGIS256 description should be TLS_AEGIS_256_SHA384, and for AEGIS128L: TLS_AEGIS_128L_SHA256.
> 
> Additional Info:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-aegis-aead/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tls-reg-review mailing list
> tls-reg-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review