Re: [TLS] working group discussion of draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-01

Where we left this was there was some, but not overwhelming support to bring it into the working group.  It was left to the authors on which path to take, through the working group process or as an individual submission.   If you go through the working group it is more likely there will be changes than if you go the individual submission route.   Matthew also raised the question of standards track vs information for ECC cipher suites.   For ECC, I still believe that informational will be the most expedient.   

Joe
On Aug 5, 2011, at 7:45 AM, Robert Cragie wrote:

> I would like to poke the coals on this one again too.
> 
> There was a presentation at IETF80 regarding two drafts originating from David McGrew (draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-01 and draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-ecc-01) given by Matthew Campagna and IIRC there were no significant objections to this moving forward. However there was no particular support from the WG chairs for doing this through the WG. In the meantime, a number of vendors have been using these drafts and testing the TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8 and TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8 in both PANA/EAP-TLS and TLS forms successfully.
> 
> Therefore I would like to get an clear view as to the way to move this forward - either through the WG or as individual submissions.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Robert
> 
> On 01/08/2011 10:13 PM, Thomas Herbst wrote:
>> Not sure where this fits into the wg chair's extensions triaging, but was hoping for an update on draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-01 last week.
>> 
>> In Zigbee we'd specified ccm as most of the 802.15.4 chips have hardware support.
>> 
>> tom
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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