Re: [TLS] Last Call: <draft-kanno-tls-camellia-00.txt> (Additionx

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 11 March 2011 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
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 ED7A33A6B1A; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:13:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.933
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.933 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 q2XaXNJPpVht; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:13:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298093A6A32; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:13:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwl42 with SMTP id 42so3445109iwl.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:15:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.74.71 with SMTP id v7mr12348653icj.232.1299860104251; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:15:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.42.234.9 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:15:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201103111607.p2BG7YDV001679@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
References: <AANLkTimOHxPWoUJ9ssc5g=qnF2K3dT34Dcu2RBiEn--d@mail.gmail.com> <201103111607.p2BG7YDV001679@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:15:04 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTinhqoccbmVFGv68JAFL2R3XAS=iq2X06aPYqHPv@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
To: mrex@sap.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: tls@ietf.org, kent@bbn.com, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Last Call: <draft-kanno-tls-camellia-00.txt> (Additionx
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/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: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:13:47 -0000

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com> wrote:
>> I don't recall why 12 bytes rather than 16 bytes or 20 was chosen.
>
> It is not unusual when a two group of folks (IPSEC and TLS) sourcing from
> the same pool of engineers and experts (IETF) have to do two very
> similar decisions (truncating HMAC-SHA-1) within a fairly short time,
> end up with the same conclusion.
>
>  http://www.ietf.org/html/rfc2404  Jan-1998  HMAC-SHA-1-96 (for IPSEC)
>  http://www.ietf.org/html/rfc2246  Jan-1999  TLSv1.0
>
>
> The dates vs. rfc-numbers of these two documents look strange:
> The dates indicate they were published one year apart, but given
> their rfc-numbers, one would intuitively expect their dates to
> be just the other way round.

TLS 1.0 was held up in process for a long time due to normative
dependency issues
vis-a-vis PKIX.

-Ekr