Re: [TLS] Pull Request: Removing the AEAD explicit IV

Watson Ladd <> Thu, 19 March 2015 04:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D081A877C for <>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 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, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5D-REB5XOf5c for <>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 223F61A8766 for <>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ykfc206 with SMTP id c206so24242306ykf.1 for <>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=J7gyU4k2577TX/sS0yMZ6kbJUuyiJuCBXU5FFRVWmgE=; b=MP2myD8k34nsn0dw2i6QyNwDERhlL3qOQJADfOg4z4INyWBXqHUWWfL/Z6TF5dWCjI 1SRTFAffEzFXwf7bCyph7FZWPAaALyTbk3mj+ejwtwWrjm7nTKyFXLf+oynUiv8SLH1D EipsqjxcLDnDlS4dY/tBT1ayFKo2Wz8fohOkLrW0QdgVHdAYtbCy6NwkdO9rm48AGwYO oyZgx+Aa8cXrdiClXIrgPTHNRpikTbbn1P/cWfYMMHfc++d6BHhKS8flD3M1/TOZ+O1h En0uuZng7nPxgeltSmp6aLqU2at25YhdTOVQICkhviiAJDxcnmdAMTRqOPH+3rhm0ylA bjZQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id 3mr85157008yko.24.1426738894435; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:21:34 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Watson Ladd <>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Colm_MacC=C3=A1rthaigh?= <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Pull Request: Removing the AEAD explicit IV
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 04:21:36 -0000

I'm afraid that by radically changing the record layer we may be
working ourselves into a corner. If we're going to make a change this
radical, why not make equally radical changes to simplify the protocol
further if that's possible? I'm also not sure what we're supposed to
be gaining from this change: while it's true that we don't need to
send the explicit nonce, I don't know that we are losing anything from
having it. Yes, I know the ChaCha draft does it a seemingly more
sensible way, but the last thing we need is to further increase the
codesize of TLS implementations.

I do know that a recently implemented extension to FreeBSD won't work
anymore without some changes. (see for an abstract)

Watson Ladd