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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 18 March 2015 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 199411A8913 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 0G7-dtcyzurM for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177]) (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 A00801A8905 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wixw10 with SMTP id w10so71432502wix.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:40:06 -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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=YZ6OUjdHeqCRb97e58YXhmCb/M65gcP0/oMbxBnmHwo=; b=cfqD8vWs+Uep8e2EvKtDWEBdCICCRfqP2sQXqEnkvmjofsswXLz3McoGyRMlNB8ZWl CRrH/Q2m0B9yllqcLwOtY+6xbk8b+Lt3F3h5Jqgu7rYtgj93qfHLKzrI3pQ2iJEnNVHr U1J1WU9FvKywitZAeS7yravMmegyWO80H9TvaM7VdEi9RbZjaLNuuSLUvFwmbxMx4iqD jKZKPAZITCS03QaMKXiQFESTnmtheHf1bLjxRZCgkby5bZDdUH5I+k9IbTeHECQgzE7N seOwRQPCWs1Tyau842V15Rorgdrl97EoD8j40/mGJ6WnIcegYCqqNjDmg2jXAaT7q6/U ULaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmaF89RlXKGLTETYipr5tHteusyaY6mS0FzGhcwAuMKRVOxXPFWx8LLKAeSEROqGvP/nXGl
X-Received: by 10.194.235.71 with SMTP id uk7mr148007758wjc.13.1426718406172; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.205.198 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5509FE0A.4060903@nthpermutation.com>
References: <CABcZeBPfasM5HmJaATLUHQKRgiSGCreJt1T=UoDBGCbcuzyW8Q@mail.gmail.com> <55086D3C.5090605@nthpermutation.com> <CABcZeBOF-ezdpJcA5W3-Y6548KoG8qu9KSRdpEHic7UZBjLqCQ@mail.gmail.com> <55099E57.6080008@nthpermutation.com> <CABcZeBNufuC+71w3dY=AJu7JDQhdU6kehc77fEHO38gPUN+5-A@mail.gmail.com> <5509FE0A.4060903@nthpermutation.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:39:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMH5iJd+p3p56bHQYd-Xne72Cha9qchsLVtXgYRDLdzQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01493afacb7bb5051197c327
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/BvWAhpjOJthsBGD9o7AWznub3Xk>
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: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:40:09 -0000

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>;
wrote:

>  On 3/18/2015 11:58 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>;
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>  David used Nonce properly here, but it becomes confusing when taken to
>> using the same key with multiple messages.
>>
>>
>> Each message ALSO needs a Nonce - e.g. a unique value.  But the other
>> term for a per-message nonce is generally an IV.  At the message level a
>> nonce is always an IV but an IV isn't always a nonce.
>>
>
>  The term in RFC 5116 uses for this input is "nonce". I don't think it's
> helpful
> to use a different term here than is used in RFC 5116. Please note that
> all the ciphers here need to conform to the RFC5116 interface, so whatever
> the individual ciphers call their nonce inputs is not relevant here.
>
>
> David used David's language for 5116.
>

Perhaps, but this is the document we are normatively referencing for AEAD.

-Ekr