Re: [TLS] RFC4492bis - Rename the "Supported Elliptic Curves" extension

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 14 January 2015 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29FF01A8AB7 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 13:04:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Bhis_aOEiJ9J for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 13:04:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22b.google.com (mail-wg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B01ED1A901F for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 13:04:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id k14so11294015wgh.2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 13:04:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=thCVulBaaAKlQbpDF2b7FTzn9FF21Df20br+AB2DT1I=; b=GnE7KKRF+V5ul4ZFQy2BLy5g7pTa2mEOIFnHuZRbV/M6/Wv7+B+6Qddt15u8ly5HNJ azxBuaP4RomcMwn2NAoAtX+Kbx3QrtjOERXwC3pAqBJSpAKapttz18WuMrqV/NDJcUyN HUYUaQLnWfvB58+TKD1WxOzR6apiabjxAIu0S7jOZy1nhWNQAcJMFSCK/oHAq7ptcjUw BYU2rKuY0GqnqZdnHBf5H0QQ5J7t33v/bL4kavCB0Cs54oJETZgWduU0xzMp46aOMnQE BvN6kBRKDnG3vaDGTDEHUWjsCohZHXKhdrC8yF/15ei9kf7ELzi5l2hyztcPhp5n9R2a 1Wbg==
X-Received: by 10.180.187.67 with SMTP id fq3mr18726659wic.37.1421269451098; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 13:04:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.15] ([46.120.13.132]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fo12sm20143622wic.19.2015.01.14.13.04.10 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Jan 2015 13:04:10 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87fvbd3y10.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 23:04:09 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7DE5B6FE-F114-4A2F-8A1F-B79C49452887@gmail.com>
References: <CALuAYvZK+adZrEOh5Q0f_nSM-WS5w=KRuZe4U3Cde3xC6p11FA@mail.gmail.com> <54b6c734.e40cc30a.52a1.02ef@mx.google.com> <87fvbd3y10.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/6SL7ebsrzUyLhSvUuGElzkEmfsM>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] RFC4492bis - Rename the "Supported Elliptic Curves" extension
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:04:15 -0000

> On Jan 14, 2015, at 10:30 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> wrote:
> 
> On Wed 2015-01-14 14:44:52 -0500, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> I'm weakly opposed to renaming it. The name exists in codebases,
>> protocol analyzers, books and web articles. I get that now we're
>> adding non-EC groups, but renaming it seems like a gratuitous change
>> to me with a non-zero cost.
> 
> I understand your concern, but it's also a quite annoying to have names
> that diverge from definitions such that someone coming to it new has to
> understand the history of a construct to make sense of the modern state,
> which is what would happen if the non-curve groups get added and the
> extension keeps the name "elliptic_curves".  software names can be
> easily updated, and an alias for the old name exposed if it crosses API
> or ABI boundaries.
> 
> What order do we expect these updates to be applied?  It seems like the
> -negotiated-ffdhe draft and 4492bis should reference each other, and
> should aim to reflect the same final state, if possible, right?
> 
> and aiui, 4492bis should ultimately reflect the response from the CFRG,
> if it ever comes, right?
> 
> I'm happy to help coordinate so that the two drafts don't cause a
> divergent state; maybe by proposing a pull request to 4492bis once
> -negotiated-ffdhe has been settled.  does that sound OK?

As I said, weakly opposed. And yes, if I rename the extension, I will reference your draft.