IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Should we require compressed points

"Dan Harkins" <dharkins@lounge.org> Tue, 21 October 2014 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <dharkins@lounge.org>
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 1BDA81A8775 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.867
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.867 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] 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 WFe3GB2KyTuG for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from colo.trepanning.net (colo.trepanning.net [69.55.226.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF851A1BC8 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.trepanning.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by colo.trepanning.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F90510224008; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 69.12.173.8 (SquirrelMail authenticated user dharkins@lounge.org) by www.trepanning.net with HTTP; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <b41d711efa738f233087fc1f4ba8f496.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMqdwWTFxGAqaC9PqhzbgZM5yOf2TTq7pVCjyw_X+3Zkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABcZeBMqdwWTFxGAqaC9PqhzbgZM5yOf2TTq7pVCjyw_X+3Zkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:56:57 -0700
From: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.14 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/MhNoDIgjfZJqEQjpz5HheUujixk
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Should we require compressed points
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: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 18:57:03 -0000

  Hi Eric,

  I agree with your proposal.

  Dan.

On Tue, October 21, 2014 7:52 am, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/issues/80
>
> Today we discussed the possibility of requiring support for compressed
> points
> in TLS 1.3 now that the IPR has expired.
>
> Specifically, I propose that for TLS 1.3, we:
>
> - Use only compressed points for the existing curves (and presumably
>   whatever superior format is defined for the CFRG-recommended
>   curves, as appropriate).
>
> - Deprecate the Supported Point Formats extension for TLS 1.3
>
>
> For RFC 4492-bis, we might also consider requiring support for compressed
> points as well as uncompressed (already required) but this seems like a
> separable issue, since it's mostly in service of optimization rather than
> simplicity.
>
> What do people think?
> -Ekr
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email