[TLS] draft-jay-tls-omit-aead-explicit-nonce-extension
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 23 October 2015 20:05 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 413531A8AF2 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 5BusiNzM8tRb for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yk0-x236.google.com (mail-yk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::236]) (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 AAA371A8AEC for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yknn9 with SMTP id n9so131383208ykn.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm_com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=WaYyKEzx4Pn3yDIkhCgD+EjPzvRU5MkS/z0tFSMxRxY=; b=UEFEPmofLuz8kIM3PhylvDAzRYWL8N8XEoKtax/80H7oaPdjM0UcROqNyWQ/SEIr23 8u6xNUSpkN+K2DL+/NMhJhzZ3BQOneCguyvAAR/JGi3r3ZOaT89REfTxCMAY+J/KfWdR 93rmokGPYtcQdlqvWl8Gchh7MKbcIzmbThLVJuP1qpdA+0zy0rSXnIJzGJC/N5F15/Jh DmsrzAcnQhyq+OZOWX7XaVQXTNDI2+mW+fca69FSFA559mCeQDvaD2ETgQe39hK84ucE Ng/q6c4a6fFM4gon3j68ukDXobB9QQdaQleGwRi/XTtkZi8+VRR1J2YJJl/hGoxwb6hc SD3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=WaYyKEzx4Pn3yDIkhCgD+EjPzvRU5MkS/z0tFSMxRxY=; b=UFW91buEXXUB/vQT72EAU1NlFUchOeeob6OUnCMhy6LLxt7Wy+BDC5oJWfVI8KfGMy osiNZRJz9eMBw1FIHZYJIL1M5DV1kEGhF/tQNCt4ezhekMA15QODVqycfu/f4YGKJet+ er9Sb438MuukNcQemYk4zpxOUwHPhE9h32fvt3SoqdGD9SvD+uT/edDAxkLgcl/7diHQ GPM8gttfWIhp8oO2isIn/m7X87FRBvrO+BLrL5ktnTr3SPiJy5uHUvuimI977sEQcd7Q Qd4q2mQuJ3CrPZMgTFv1DKLTz/tBsxsLgxqjE5PohgoqLdmSs+B4g9HkeZ/J9JCulZoS Yahw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkTZS9/9XcJ7V0mezUZivtWaSq0oCSho6LgH7uqgEMTjjgGirL6KBSzwv1W3Pu5OW0e7X31
X-Received: by 10.13.224.2 with SMTP id j2mr18852811ywe.165.1445630729999; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.221.85 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:04:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOCuuh=vQ2H-PA3bKFMSTp1duAqhj_thaN0VoCv4NDfEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>, draft-jay-tls-omit-aead-explicit-nonce-extension@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c074626235c740522cb221f"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/MCe-GiASfrYD_EN_zbwxCTNz1Sg>
Subject: [TLS] draft-jay-tls-omit-aead-explicit-nonce-extension
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 23 Oct 2015 20:05:32 -0000
I took a quick look at this draft and IMO it is unnecessary, for two reasons: 1. There is already no requirement that you have an explicit nonce. RFC5246 merely requires that you specify the length of the explicit nonce, but that length can be 0, as it is in the ChaCha/Poly drafts. So, rather than build an extension it would be better to just define a new cipher suite if you think this is important. 2. TLS 1.3 already omits the explicit nonce entirely. -Ekr
- [TLS] draft-jay-tls-omit-aead-explicit-nonce-exte… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] draft-jay-tls-omit-aead-explicit-nonce-… Jayaraghavendran k
- Re: [TLS] draft-jay-tls-omit-aead-explicit-nonce-… Jayaraghavendran k
- Re: [TLS] draft-jay-tls-omit-aead-explicit-nonce-… Eric Rescorla