IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] call for consensus: changes to IANA registry rules for cipher suites

Bill Frantz <frantz@pwpconsult.com> Wed, 30 March 2016 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <frantz@pwpconsult.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B23112D954 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 mu_mpBpjDmHM for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F2612D95F for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [173.75.83.83] (helo=Williams-MacBook-Pro.local) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <frantz@pwpconsult.com>) id 1alNtL-0004TK-US; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:43:08 -0400
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:42:57 -0700
From: Bill Frantz <frantz@pwpconsult.com>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <F7468161-DC32-47E8-97F9-0680D344115A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <r470Ps-10114i-C2CEF0EC8FC74FE1AE840AE189894724@Williams-MacBook-Pro.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Mailsmith 2.4 (470)
X-ELNK-Trace: 3a5e54fa03f1b3e21aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec793116b42bf211ea62bc098f0e50ebac75350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 173.75.83.83
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/R9FX_iVL5j2LC-t7PnjS5I2m6kk>
Cc: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] call for consensus: changes to IANA registry rules for cipher suites
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 21:43:32 -0000

+1 for the change.

On 3/30/16 at 1:26 PM, ynir.ietf@gmail.com (Yoav Nir) wrote:

>That brings up another question. How do things move from 
>“approved” to “not-approved”? Does it require a 
>diediedie document? What happens when we decide that 3DES is 
>just too limited and there’s not good reason to use it, but 
>there’s really no security issue with using it?

Certainly for downgrading any widely deployed algorithm, e.g. 
RC4, there needs to be a IETF process. The RFC process works, so 
we don't need to invent a new wheel. Therefore a diediedie RFC 
seems the logical choice.

I hope algorithms don't get on the approved list unless they are 
likely to be widely deployed. (But I expect to see counter-arguments.)

Cheers - Bill

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz        | gets() remains as a monument | Periwinkle
(408)356-8506      | to C's continuing support of | 16345 
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com | buffer overruns.             | Los Gatos, 
CA 95032

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email