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

Colm MacCárthaigh <colm@allcosts.net> Thu, 19 March 2015 04:24 UTC

Return-Path: <colm@allcosts.net>
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 72EFD1A8770 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no
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 GR4dYFZpyD_B for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f170.google.com (mail-ob0-f170.google.com [209.85.214.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A18B1A876F for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obcjt1 with SMTP id jt1so26120859obc.2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Y9OoomU0NdjdBvwlWUOA6uGeT2tMc+rgz3DPdQwKHJ4=; b=a6bcPralCuJ9g6XSjXA4ceCKWCn176StPwK0H8Gxnyp+zp1Rzw+tx7WDePpnQDyQ4f 2p3VBHnh0selOXLlfBq5x2F365T9VpkwI2EoBJ48Vc3zURyOFUqAx7TQSWKa3LoyTZ/f gU2fbUEgEhc8cJJDXLmcZyYyctzVAREvIpiMY09FTn90SBXCglekGe6Tnyz93OHNtyKL Uyu8HtknlnjgXle2PHr7V1P+ag5OWOQPEnHiENi7r1aajmydTm4FMrWZlNwJD2sh7J1e 7/OXCymbU/u7UJwQ60L/13cGjd7bYUz/k+CT5gl9548dep4rALiebJfvvY+72rP2Si7O s2SQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnkiyzQXFleNZbqx3l5on98M4oTEct86goOHcIUIRogTfOfCAcd3/zD2TPEcvO7wduRTlou
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.24.202 with SMTP id w10mr60992111obf.9.1426739060886; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.129.235 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0ckU==QcJhTvyov2DeJCKq_kxvfqK=AkFKsyFcRbQBfC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABcZeBPfasM5HmJaATLUHQKRgiSGCreJt1T=UoDBGCbcuzyW8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAAF6GDdbr57hVa4OD-wCfQtx46bo_D858V_25w8gTtd+M8OhzQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACsn0ckU==QcJhTvyov2DeJCKq_kxvfqK=AkFKsyFcRbQBfC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:24:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAF6GDeEvnt7Gzz-8VutTwaO5BCq8ZA4Z-CSKoY4oYkwqvAn_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Colm_MacC=C3=A1rthaigh?= <colm@allcosts.net>
To: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/BQqiVoRX2KdAx1LJlEGiFglJACY>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Pull Request: Removing the AEAD explicit IV
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: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 04:24:22 -0000

Why would the extension break?

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 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
> http://2015.asiabsdcon.org/timetable.html.en#P7A for an abstract)
>
> Sincerely,
> Watson Ladd



-- 
Colm