Re: [TLS] Should CCM_8 CSs be Recommended?

The original requirement for the truncated (_8) authentication tags was
purely to save bytes. It makes very little difference re. processing as a
16 octet tag is always computed in AES-CCM-128 anyway.

I agree with the assessment that it is "limited applicability" in the grand
scheme of things although it may be more ubiquitous in IoT applications.

Robert

On 5 October 2017 at 17:45, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:

> This is exactly how I think about it.
>
> spt
>
> > On Oct 4, 2017, at 12:11, Andrei Popov <Andrei.Popov@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > It seems that CCM_8 falls in the “limited applicability” bucket.
> However, there’s nothing wrong with IoT specs requiring these ciphers in
> their TLS profiles.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Andrei
> >
> > From: TLS [mailto:tls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Salowey
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 11:42 AM
> > To: Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com>
> > Cc: <tls@ietf.org> <tls@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Re: [TLS] Should CCM_8 CSs be Recommended?
> >
> > The current editor's copy of the draft has the following text about the
> recommended column:
> >
> > The instructions in this document add a recommended column to many of
> the TLS registries to indicate parameters that are generally recommended
> for implementations to support. Adding a recommended parameter to a
> registry or updating a parameter to recommended status requires standards
> action. Not all parameters defined in standards track documents need to be
> marked as recommended.
> >
> > If an item is marked as not recommended it does not necessarily mean
> that it is flawed, rather, it indicates that either the item has not been
> through the IETF consensus process or the item has limited applicability to
> specific cases.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
> > ➢  We’re recommending that these five suites be dropped from the
> recommended list.  Please let us know what you think.
> >
> >
> > Does “recommended” mean for general use, in the public Internet?  Or is
> it “I know it when I see it” kind of thing?
> >
> > Either way, I support un-recommending them
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TLS mailing list
> > TLS@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TLS mailing list
> > TLS@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>