[TLS] Review of draft-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-00
Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com> Tue, 04 March 2008 17:51 UTC
Return-Path: <tls-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-tls-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tls-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA9AF28C1CA; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:51:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.358
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.358 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id keH08EsOdecP; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:51:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD703A68A3; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:51:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464413A68A3 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:51:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W6j0-2-snf4P for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:51:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from romeo.rtfm.com (unknown [74.95.2.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B1293A6A0A for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:51:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from romeo.rtfm.com (localhost.rtfm.com [127.0.0.1]) by romeo.rtfm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED75A5081A for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:53:20 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:53:20 -0800
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com>
To: tls@ietf.org
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/21.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Message-Id: <20080304175320.ED75A5081A@romeo.rtfm.com>
Subject: [TLS] Review of draft-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-00
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tls-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tls-bounces@ietf.org
$Id: draft-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-00-rev.txt,v 1.1 2008/03/04 17:32:45 ekr Exp $ It's not clear to me why this document isn't simply an updated cut-and-paste of RFC 4132 with additional ciphers. In particular, this draft contains a large number of grammatical errors which have already been ironed out of 4132. It's not clear to me that we really need the combinatoric explosion of all possible key exchange and signature algorithms with Camellia. I think it's a bad idea to specify HMAC-SHA-1 for use with the SHA-1 cipher suites. Note that all the suites in TLS 1.2 use SHA-256. Why do we need a mandatory to implement Camellia cipher suite? TLS is quite capable of negotiating this stuff. -Ekr _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
- [TLS] Review of draft-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-00 Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] Review of draft-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-00 KATO Akihiro